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

[snerkler]

I don't really get the file is too large thing tbh... storage is cheap enough these days. you get greater freedom to compose on a higher MP body if anything.
The one place where I can see A7RIV file size being a problem is for sports when you need to shoot a lot pictures in bursts but that's hardly "walkaround" shooting

My computer bogged down with the large files leading to a bit of frustration at times. I do prefer the flexibility of the extra MP though if I’ve got the rest of the gear to keep up with it. I’m hoping by the time I can afford the A1 I’ll have a new more powerful computer

 

[wookie6262]

My issue is the shooting I do with such lenses a lot of the time I don’t really get the chance to ‘choose’ composition and/or how close I can get to the subject (thinking motorsports and sports venues).

Versatility isn't the major selling point of primes I suppose but I am quite liking the challenge of moving into position and not having the easy option of zooming. The buttery bokeh helps too and on an A7R IV it is probably a decent substitute for a 70-200 if you tend to shoot at the longer focal lengths

 

[addicknchips]

Nice. I’ve often wondered if I can use a 135mm f1.8 instead of a 70-200mm f2.8 but I’m not sure if I’d miss the flexibility.

In what way is the A9 a better walkabout camera than the A7RIV?

its a superb lens. up there with the sharpest ive ever used. the focus speed is brilliant too and will make it great for some sports and action too. its definitely not a one trick pony.

 

[mav]

couple from the Garden fist was with a canon 400 f5.6 Aandthe mc-11 Adaptor
others with the 200-600

 

[nandbytes]

Storage is cheap but it slows the workflow and just isn't needed. The A9 is snappier in operation so just a bit more fun to shoot and it is a good bit better at higher iso's from what I have seen so far albeit stripping pixels out the A7R iv files does help with noise.

My computer bogged down with the large files leading to a bit of frustration at times. I do prefer the flexibility of the extra MP though if I’ve got the rest of the gear to keep up with it. I’m hoping by the time I can afford the A1 I’ll have a new more powerful computer

my late 2015 iMac (admittedly maxed out) could handle A7RIV files without much problems or slow down. The base model M1 macbook air can handle the files with small amount of lag.
so I personally don't get this point either.

But i can appreciate A9 is snappier in operation and so it should being a sports body and all. just don't know about it being a better walkaround body that's all.

 

[wookie6262]

my late 2015 iMac (admittedly maxed out) could handle A7RIV files without much problems or slow down. The base model M1 macbook air can handle the files with small amount of lag.
so I personally don't get this point either.

But i can appreciate A9 is snappier in operation and so it should being a sports body and all. just don't know about it being a better walkaround body that's all.

I have a decent PC which can handle the files but they are still a bit slower to load. I'm not very fond of processing so the less time spent there the better. It is also easier to get sharp images on a 24mp sensor than a 60 odd megapixel one when you are handholding and just out to get some shots to record what happened on a walk. I am also very new to Sony so maybe my lack of knowledge and experience means I am gravitating to the quicker focussing and easier to get sharp files camera. I'll try the A7r IV tomorrow and shoot with a 35mm and see how I get on

 

[nandbytes]

I have a decent PC which can handle the files but they are still a bit slower to load. I'm not very fond of processing so the less time spent there the better. It is also easier to get sharp images on a 24mp sensor than a 60 odd megapixel one when you are handholding and just out to get some shots to record what happened on a walk. I am also very new to Sony so maybe my lack of knowledge and experience means I am gravitating to the quicker focussing and easier to get sharp files camera. I'll try the A7r IV tomorrow and shoot with a 35mm and see how I get on

It's no more easier or difficult to get sharper shots on 24mp vs. 61mp or even 100mp or 12mp. Higher megapixels shows your handholding shakes more than lower mp bodies, you can always downscale the images to a lower mp to get exactly the same result.
Lack of data is not the same as having better data

I have both 24mp and 61mp and the downside with the 61mp is the speed for shooting action. For action it does slow down the workflow too as you have large set of files to work with cull and then process. for walkaround i think higher MP gives greater freedom especially if you are using primes. With really nice GM prime that can resolves such high res sensor you get quite a lot of cropping room which is very beneficial. Speed isn't necessarily the priority for "walkaround" or general purpose use imo and its not like A7RIV is horrendously slow, obviously a sport body would have it beat in that aspect.

 

[snerkler]

my late 2015 iMac (admittedly maxed out) could handle A7RIV files without much problems or slow down. The base model M1 macbook air can handle the files with small amount of lag.
so I personally don't get this point either.

But i can appreciate A9 is snappier in operation and so it should being a sports body and all. just don't know about it being a better walkaround body that's all.

I have a MBP and at the time 16gb RAM was the max you could get, and it’s just not enough. Even with all other programs closed the max free RAM I get is around 9gb. Just flicking through the images in LR causes the spinning beachball at times, and if you want to view 1:1 it gets tiresome very quickly. I’ve also noticed that opening a processed image using preview takes a couple of seconds to render.

I was contemplating the 16” MBP and getting 64gb RAM but I’m waiting for the M1 versions and seeing what the prices are like.

There’s no questioning the files from the R4 are rather special though.

 

[nandbytes]

I have a MBP and at the time 16gb RAM was the max you could get, and it’s just not enough. Even with all other programs closed the max free RAM I get is around 9gb. Just flicking through the images in LR causes the spinning beachball at times, and if you want to view 1:1 it gets tiresome very quickly. I’ve also noticed that opening a processed image using preview takes a couple of seconds to render.

I was contemplating the 16” MBP and getting 64gb RAM but I’m waiting for the M1 versions and seeing what the prices are like.

There’s no questioning the files from the R4 are rather special though.

my iMac also had "only" 16GB RAM. I had no issues.

 

[snerkler]

my iMac also had "only" 16GB RAM. I had no issues.

Not sure what the issue is then, but I know I don’t get 16gb free RAM or even close. I know minimum spec is 8GB RAM now, but recommended 16GB. I’m getting around minimum spec free RAM and then trying to process mega files. Could be my GPU as well I guess.

Are you using CC or standalone?

 

[wookie6262]

I just tested the files from the A7R IV and A9. I opened 10 raws in photoshop as I would normally have shot them. Uncompressed for A7R IV and compressed for A9. I'm shocked how little difference there was with the A9 taking 7.8 seconds to load in Raw Viewer and the A7R Iv files only taking a single second longer. Times include me fumbling for a stopwatch start and stop on a separate screen but @nandbytes is right that there isn't much difference. It just shows how my pre-conceived ideas over-ride any real life workings.

I'll shoot the A7R IV on my walk tomorrow and see how I do processing the files. It was a bit apples and oranges as it was a very bright day today and dark yesterday so perhaps my disappointment with the sharpness of the A7R IV files was simply too low a shutter speed and a higher iso robbing some detail compared to the lovely clean files today.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I did some more colour tests today

colourprofiles by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Adobe Colour left vs Color Fidelity Standard V2 right

But everything was still a little tinted by yellow, so I cooled the image down a made some minor tweaks - and now I've got an image that, to me, looks far better than what the raw gave me

Final by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

I'm stepping towards enjoying the Sony just that bit more

Excellent

 

[nandbytes]

Not sure what the issue is then, but I know I don’t get 16gb free RAM or even close. I know minimum spec is 8GB RAM now, but recommended 16GB. I’m getting around minimum spec free RAM and then trying to process mega files. Could be my GPU as well I guess.

Are you using CC or standalone?

You mostly shoot uncompressed RAW? And then you have a conversion step to DNG?
I mostly shoot compressed RAW with no conversations in my workflow.

My GPU was a 4GB one, can't remember the exact model now. My M1 Mac air only has 8GB RAM and no graphics memory. LR does constantly try to use 10-12GB on a 8GB machine and slows down a little with A7RIV files but works smoothly with A7C.

Have the latest LR

 

[snerkler]

You mostly shoot uncompressed RAW? And then you have a conversion step to DNG?
I mostly shoot compressed RAW with no conversations in my workflow.

My GPU was a 4GB one, can't remember the exact model now. My M1 Mac air only has 8GB RAM and no graphics memory. LR does constantly try to use 10-12GB on a 8GB machine and slows down a little with A7RIV files but works smoothly with A7C.

Have the latest LR

I shoot uncompressed raw except for sports where I know I'm going to be firing off a lot of shots over the day. I tried converting to DNG to see if it made any difference as the file sizes come out smaller but it doesn't seem to make any difference so I assume it's the processing of that many pixels rather than the physical file size.

I don't profess to know the reason though, all I know is that my system gets massively bogged down with the A7RIV files. I even tried shutting down background things like dropbox and Roland Cloud but it didn't help. What's surprising is that LR uses 6GB RAM just by being open

 

[addicknchips]

I shoot uncompressed raw except for sports where I know I'm going to be firing off a lot of shots over the day. I tried converting to DNG to see if it made any difference as the file sizes come out smaller but it doesn't seem to make any difference so I assume it's the processing of that many pixels rather than the physical file size.

I don't profess to know the reason though, all I know is that my system gets massively bogged down with the A7RIV files. I even tried shutting down background things like dropbox and Roland Cloud but it didn't help. What's surprising is that LR uses 6GB RAM just by being open

I thought my MacBook Pro was going to take off and fly out the window when I loaded over a thousand a7riv shots to LR. It was really working hard.

My MacBook does need updating but it’s always been fine with other high mp cameras I had, including the gfx.

I found the r2/r3 files much more manageable l.

 

[snerkler]

I thought my MacBook Pro was going to take off and fly out the window when I loaded over a thousand shots to LR. It was really working hard.

My MacBook does need updating but it’s always been fine with other high mp cameras I had, including the gfx.

I found the r2/r3 files much more manageable l.

Not sure what the issue is with mine then, maybe I'm just impatient As I've said before though just skipping through images seeing which I want to process can cause the spinning beachball, and when it's "on one" it can take several seconds to swap between full view and 1:1 which becomes a pain when applying sharpening or fine brush adjustments. Touch wood I've had no such issues with the A9ii files yet.

I wonder if the display makes a difference, obviously the more pixels it has to show the more processing it'll take? Here's my specs:-

 

[nandbytes]

I shoot uncompressed raw except for sports where I know I'm going to be firing off a lot of shots over the day. I tried converting to DNG to see if it made any difference as the file sizes come out smaller but it doesn't seem to make any difference so I assume it's the processing of that many pixels rather than the physical file size.

I don't profess to know the reason though, all I know is that my system gets massively bogged down with the A7RIV files. I even tried shutting down background things like dropbox and Roland Cloud but it didn't help. What's surprising is that LR uses 6GB RAM just by being open

Personally I see no point shooting uncompressed most of the time unless you are planning to push your shots 4stops+ most of the time. In fact Sony's compressed RAW can handle even 5 stops of push in most conditions but I like to be on the safe side in those high dynamic range situations. You actually have more data/range in Sony's compressed RAW than you'd get out of a canon sensor RAW for last decade

Umcompressed RAW does slow things down a bit more but since I don't shoot it most of the time I don't notice it.

 

[snerkler]

Personally I see no point shooting uncompressed most of the time unless you are planning to push your shots 4stops+ most of the time. In fact Sony's compressed RAW can handle even 5 stops of push in most conditions but I like to be on the safe side in those high dynamic range situations. You actually have more data/range in Sony's compressed RAW than you'd get out of a canon sensor RAW for last decade

Umcompressed RAW does slow things down a bit more but since I don't shoot it most of the time I don't notice it.

The way I see it is that we pay a lot of money striving to get great IQ so I'd rather have the best the camera is capable of. I appreciate that it's all in my head though, I doubt many of use could tell the difference between compressed/uncompressed and 12 vs 14bit

 

[nandbytes]

The way I see it is that we pay a lot of money striving to get great IQ so I'd rather have the best the camera is capable of. I appreciate that it's all in my head though, I doubt many of use could tell the difference between compressed/uncompressed and 12 vs 14bit

I don't think any one can tell the difference (unless its in extreme conditions) and you do get that great IQ. Sony's lossy compression is actually rather good at not losing much
I guess for some of us that was the normal since a-mount days when my A99 or A77s didn't have that option of shooting uncompressed RAW. I never faced any issues and as I mentioned got a lot more latitude out of Sony RAW files than the competition. So I hardly saw a reason to have uncompressed.

 

[wookie6262]

I had to post a mountain of kit sold on ebay this morning so took my exercise hoping for a sunrise. The sunrise failed to materialise and I had 30 mins before work so unscrewed the 16-35 GM and added the 100-400 GM and shot in crop mode with the A7R IV, It was quite nice having only three lenses in the bag and they went from 16-400mm with only a gap between 70- and 100. That will be my most common bag full of lenses and it felt very light compared to my Nikon set up.

Not much light about until I had to leave but managed this one I quite liked

Quack Quack, Quack Qhack by Simon Wootton, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

There's a Canon user here asking about moving to Sony and using a lens adapter...

I bet no one has ever asked this before ... honest!! Upgrade question.

Hi folks. I currently own two camera bodies - both Canon - 5Dmk2 and 7D. I am extremely happy with both, but .... I use my 7D alongside my 100-400 mk1 lens for wildlife shots. In lower light conditions (think 1600 - 3200 ISO) I'm definitely noticing noise. A mate has recommended upgrading...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

 

[ancient_mariner]

Personally I see no point shooting uncompressed most of the time unless you are planning to push your shots 4stops+ most of the time. In fact Sony's compressed RAW can handle even 5 stops of push in most conditions but I like to be on the safe side in those high dynamic range situations. You actually have more data/range in Sony's compressed RAW than you'd get out of a canon sensor RAW for last decade

Umcompressed RAW does slow things down a bit more but since I don't shoot it most of the time I don't notice it.

I had issues with banding in skies when using compressed, but much less so with uncompressed from my A7III. I won't use compressed raw for this reason.

 

[woof woof]

As it's very quiet in here...

I've recently been reading about the new Sigma 35mm f2 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and the upcoming Voigtlander 35mm f2 apo and of course there's the upcoming now Sony 35mm f1.4 too. These all got me thinking about light gathering / ISO and depth of field and what's important to me/us.

A while back just for my own interest I took some comparison shots and decided that f2.8 was the point at which the difference in DoF when stopping down became significant for me. For a shallow dof look I think f2 is ok for me, f2.8 being the point when the difference to wider apertures gets a bit obvious and a bit limiting but not having f1.x available and only having to f2 being ok for me. Going from f1.2/1.4 to f2 doesn't represent a massive game changing option limiting difference in look for me. Not that I want razor thin DoF for every shot or even for many, just the odd one now and again and for that odd now and again one f2 is probably fine, f2.8 less so.

Light gathering though is another issue but to some extent can be mitigated by better performing modern camera or by software in post capture processing. There is a price to pay for stopping down from or not having f1.4 to f2 here but is it a killer?

What do you think? What is the most important factor to you? Light gathering or DoF? Is f2 just too limiting and you need f1.x?

 

[nandbytes]

I had issues with banding in skies when using compressed, but much less so with uncompressed from my A7III. I won't use compressed raw for this reason.

Pictures or it didn't happen

I actually have pictures with this problem but I also know how I could have avoided it.
How far did you have to push the files to see the banding?

 

[snerkler]

As it's very quiet in here...

I've recently been reading about the new Sigma 35mm f2 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and the upcoming Voigtlander 35mm f2 apo and of course there's the upcoming now Sony 35mm f1.4 too. These all got me thinking about light gathering / ISO and depth of field and what's important to me/us.

A while back just for my own interest I took some comparison shots and decided that f2.8 was the point at which the difference in DoF when stopping down became significant for me. For a shallow dof look I think f2 is ok for me, f2.8 being the point when the difference to wider apertures gets a bit obvious and a bit limiting but not having f1.x available and only having to f2 being ok for me. Going from f1.2/1.4 to f2 doesn't represent a massive game changing option limiting difference in look for me. Not that I want razor thin DoF for every shot or even for many, just the odd one now and again and for that odd now and again one f2 is probably fine, f2.8 less so.

Light gathering though is another issue but to some extent can be mitigated by better performing modern camera or by software in post capture processing. There is a price to pay for stopping down from or not having f1.4 to f2 here but is it a killer?

What do you think? What is the most important factor to you? Light gathering or DoF? Is f2 just too limiting and you need f1.x?

Have you used the Samyang 35mm f1.2 MF lens? I'm tempted to give it a go as it's relatively cheap, and to push me to try MF more. I've found that peaking isn't that accurate and prefer jsut to use zoom focus. Do you have any tips on how to master MF, I've not done it since the days of split prisms?

 

[addicknchips]

As it's very quiet in here...

I've recently been reading about the new Sigma 35mm f2 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and the upcoming Voigtlander 35mm f2 apo and of course there's the upcoming now Sony 35mm f1.4 too. These all got me thinking about light gathering / ISO and depth of field and what's important to me/us.

A while back just for my own interest I took some comparison shots and decided that f2.8 was the point at which the difference in DoF when stopping down became significant for me. For a shallow dof look I think f2 is ok for me, f2.8 being the point when the difference to wider apertures gets a bit obvious and a bit limiting but not having f1.x available and only having to f2 being ok for me. Going from f1.2/1.4 to f2 doesn't represent a massive game changing option limiting difference in look for me. Not that I want razor thin DoF for every shot or even for many, just the odd one now and again and for that odd now and again one f2 is probably fine, f2.8 less so.

Light gathering though is another issue but to some extent can be mitigated by better performing modern camera or by software in post capture processing. There is a price to pay for stopping down from or not having f1.4 to f2 here but is it a killer?

What do you think? What is the most important factor to you? Light gathering or DoF? Is f2 just too limiting and you need f1.x?

Good questions. Do you factor in size, weight and overall portability into purchase decisions?

A 35mm f2.8 wouldn’t normally float my boat, but when they are are small, light and silent they are hard to turn down.

 

[woof woof]

Have you used the Samyang 35mm f1.2 MF lens? I'm tempted to give it a go as it's relatively cheap, and to push me to try MF more. I've found that peaking isn't that accurate and prefer jsut to use zoom focus. Do you have any tips on how to master MF, I've not done it since the days of split prisms?

I've not used that but I'll read up on it The only f1.2 lenses I have are an old Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2 and a Voigtlander 40mm f1.2.

For manual focus I normally use the magnified view but do pre focus / zone / hyperfocal for some and I do focus just by eye or use peaking for the odd picture too. I find focusing be eye and peaking to be acceptable or even quite accurate at wide apertures as very little is in focus or peaking and you can see the peaking homing in on the point where you want focus but at smaller apertures I find it next to useless as just about everything can be peaking and although the result might be fine for whole picture viewing who can resist pixel peeping and when you do that you can often see that the point of focus isn't where you thought.

If you have the time to call up the magnified view and deliberately focus I thing that MF can be arguably the most accurate way to focus.

 

[woof woof]

Good questions. Do you factor in size, weight and overall portability into purchase decisions?

A 35mm f2.8 wouldn’t normally float my boat, but when they are are small, light and silent they are hard to turn down.

Definitely and I also factor in the attention factor, as in will this kit get me unwanted attention. I like kit that's compact, light and also unobtrusive.

The last few times I've been abroad I've taken my A7 and Sony 35mm f2.8.

 

[Cupotea]

Good questions. Do you factor in size, weight and overall portability into purchase decisions?

A 35mm f2.8 wouldn’t normally float my boat, but when they are are small, light and silent they are hard to turn down.

I'm torn between picking up one of these and the Sigma f2 for a walkabout. The size of the 2.8 is such a bonus but the Sigma does look very interesting.

 

[addicknchips]

I'm torn between picking up one of these and the Sigma f2 for a walkabout. The size of the 2.8 is such a bonus but the Sigma does look very interesting.

the 35mm samyang isnt bad either and can be found a lot cheaper than the zeiss

 

[nandbytes]

Samyang 35mm/2.8 is smallest, lightest AF lens for e-mount. Its nearly as good as the Zeiss for stills but for video Zeiss is very quiet unlike the Samyang.

 

[addicknchips]

Samyang 35mm/2.8 is smallest, lightest AF lens for e-mount. Its nearly as good as the Zeiss for stills but for video Zeiss is very quiet unlike the Samyang.

using a proper mic negates that issue.

 

[snerkler]

I've not used that but I'll read up on it The only f1.2 lenses I have are an old Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2 and a Voigtlander 40mm f1.2.

For manual focus I normally use the magnified view but do pre focus / zone / hyperfocal for some and I do focus just by eye or use peaking for the odd picture too. I find focusing be eye and peaking to be acceptable or even quite accurate at wide apertures as very little is in focus or peaking and you can see the peaking homing in on the point where you want focus but at smaller apertures I find it next to useless as just about everything can be peaking and although the result might be fine for whole picture viewing who can resist pixel peeping and when you do that you can often see that the point of focus isn't where you thought.

If you have the time to call up the magnified view and deliberately focus I thing that MF can be arguably the most accurate way to focus.

Thanks for the info

 

[Stephen L]

I’ve found that using the auto-magnify for 5 seconds, along with peaking, makes manual focus a breeze. Of course, with manual-only lenses the auto-magnify can only be triggered by electronically linked lenses, such as some Voigtlander and Zeiss.

 

[robj20]

I've always preferred to disable the auto magnify and allocate it to a button.
I'll happily use focus peaking set to its most accurate for shots about f3.5 and above. Below I'll want to use magnify.

 

[Stephen L]

I've always preferred to disable the auto magnify and allocate it to a button.
I'll happily use focus peaking set to its most accurate for shots about f3.5 and above. Below I'll want to use magnify.

Yes, I tried that but went back to auto magnify. It does have its drawbacks, but for me it’s an easier way of working. You do need to try both methods to see which is better for you . (And which level of peaking)

 

[Stephen L]

First shots with my Zeiss Loxia Planar 50mm f2 on the A7C. All uncropped.

Tree on High Way by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Moss on a drystone wall by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Broken Tree by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

 

[wookie6262]

I got the Samyang 35mm F1.8 AF. Really good lens for the money and smaller than the Sony of the same aperture

 

[G.K.Jnr.]

During the past time or two I've been trying to snap the same shots both with my APSC (not Sony) units and my RX10M4 or RX100M6 Sony units all at base ISO settings and as near as possible the same focal lengths as a comparison. And I hate to admit it but in more cases than not the RX shots are marginally sharper per equivalent focal length and aperture using zoom lenses, have more contrast straight out of the camera, they are faster focussing and to me generally more appealing. I very seldom shoot low light so I would expect the APSC snaps to be a bit better with the regards to noise in those circumstances. These are not in any way meant to be scientific assessments just my own personal findings under user conditions.

Just a simple tourist close up type Snapograph taken at Kent UK of some fishing boat Rope. I've deliberately gone for a semi graphic higher contrast gritty look to this snap to emphasise the texture.

RX10M4, 1/800th @ F5, ISO-100, Handheld.
Fishing Boat Rope-03515 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

for looking.,

George.

 

[wookie6262]

During the past time or two I've been trying to snap the same shots both with my APSC (not Sony) units and my RX10M4 or RX100M6 Sony units all at base ISO settings and as near as possible the same focal lengths as a comparison. And I hate to admit it but in more cases than not the RX shots are marginally sharper per equivalent focal length and aperture using zoom lenses, have more contrast straight out of the camera, they are faster focussing and to me generally more appealing. I very seldom shoot low light so I would expect the APSC snaps to be a bit better with the regards to noise in those circumstances. These are not in any way meant to be scientific assessments just my own personal findings under user conditions.

Just a simple tourist close up type Snapograph taken at Kent UK of some fishing boat Rope. I've deliberately gone for a semi graphic higher contrast gritty look to this snap to emphasise the texture.

RX10M4, 1/800th @ F5, ISO-100, Handheld.
Fishing Boat Rope-03515 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

for looking.,

George.

Like that, bags of contrast and detail