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

snerkler said:
Then an R body will suit you fine. The R3 is a great choice if you can get on with the ergonomics (y)
Click to expand...
One photo mate has the a7riii, the other the a7riv
I did have the a7rii before the a7iii.
I find the ergonomics just fine,
Most of my landscapes are tripod mounted anyway.
Also have a Smallrig L Bracket fitted to the a7iii that should be compatable with the a7riii
 
f/2.8 said:
The photography show offers are up and running, nothing too exciting.
Click to expand...
I've just logged on to watch some Demos, most that have been on already can't be viewed unfortunately and the ones that can are a bit meh
 
nandbytes said:
It'd mean canon has overtaken Sony in sensor tech. I somehow doubt that but possible I guess.
I didn't bother watching it because it seemed like obvious clickbait
Click to expand...
All the Northrups are is click bait these days IMO
dcash29 said:
With the little I could stand watching, he gives me the impression that its b******t.
Even if it isnt, it wont make anyone a better photographer.
Click to expand...
Global shutters are very interesting and would mark the end of mechanical shutters, but I still think we’re some way off yet. I certainly don’t think the first global shutter will be 85mp
 
snerkler said:
All the Northrups are is click bait these days IMO
Global shutters are very interesting and would mark the end of mechanical shutters, but I still think we’re some way off yet. I certainly don’t think the first global shutter will be 85mp
Click to expand...
Global shutter on 85mp FF sensor sounds more like a £65k proposition than a £6.5k one. :P
 
wookie6262 said:
Yes, more than a stop depending how you bracket and filters also make a difference too. I will often take an exposure and hope to get everything in range and then take a couple of safety shots - one for highlights and one for shadows. Often the single file is enough but sometimes it is nice to have a couple of stops more latitude. I'll also often take a shot for most of the scene and then a higher iso shot at the same exposure so I can freeze movement in trees etc and blend them together so I get movement where I want it and frozen areas where I want detail. It is digital so why not take safety shots or blend exposures to create a scene
Click to expand...

Oh that's a good idea, I'll need to remember that one!



snerkler said:
As above yes, and a lot of people do this. If I've got a high dynamic scene such as a sunset with the sun in the frame I'll use filters AND bracket. There's no right or wrong way to bracket but I tend to take 3 shots (some take 5 or more) standard exposure and then +/- 2 stops. I'm not sure how much difference being able to shoot at 20fps is going to make tbh, movement is more likely to come from the slower shutter speed taking the overexposed shot. I also wouldn't use 20fps on the A9/A9ii as you can only do this with compressed files, I will only use uncompressed (or lossless compressed if the camera has it) for landscapes.

As mentioned already though, on forums we're guilty of looking at specs and thinking we need this and we need that rather than just going out and taking photos. Based on specs alone the Canon 5DIII should be 'abysmal' at taking landscapes only have 11.7ev DR but clearly it's not, there's be many many thousands of wonderful landscapes taken with the 5DIII.

As for software I just used the HDR blending in lightroom but I do keep meaning to learn how to manually blend in photoshop. My issue with lightroom is that by default the HDR file tends to look a touch unnatural to my eyes and I have to 'faff about' to get it to look natural again.
Click to expand...

Good point, re. shutter speed.

I forgot about the 20fps compression, I'll need to remember that as I've often got it on even when I don't need it that fast. Is the difference between compressed and uncompressed noticeable?
 
gman said:
I forgot about the 20fps compression, I'll need to remember that as I've often got it on even when I don't need it that fast. Is the difference between compressed and uncompressed noticeable?
Click to expand...
Depends who you talk to. For a lot of things no, but when it comes to landscapes sometimes you want to eke out every last bit of detail from the shadows or highlights and why run the risk of compromising yourself (y)
 
snerkler said:
Depends who you talk to. For a lot of things no, but when it comes to landscapes sometimes you want to eke out every last bit of detail from the shadows or highlights and why run the risk of compromising yourself (y)
Click to expand...
Imo just shoot uncompressed, then compress them on your pc. Why start with anything but the best file your can.
 
robj20 said:
Imo just shoot uncompressed, then compress them on your pc. Why start with anything but the best file your can.
Click to expand...

Because on A7RIV the files would be >120MB each. Takes longer to write to the card or clear the buffer and I can only fit half as many files on cards which is not all that many at that file size even on my 128GB cards. also runs slower in LR or slows down the workflow.

And I basically wouldn't gain anything in practice for all those disadvantages.

gman said:
I forgot about the 20fps compression, I'll need to remember that as I've often got it on even when I don't need it that fast. Is the difference between compressed and uncompressed noticeable?
Click to expand...

The internet hyperbole will tell you all your shots will be ruined by compression.
 
Lez325 said:
Very tidy shot Lee- I didn't know Carl Zeiss did an 80-200mm - Not that I want or need one as I have the Sony 70-200mm f2.8


Les :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Les.

At the time I didn't want the size, weight and expense of something longer that I might not use much. I think this was just under £200 - Contax Carl Zeiss vario-sonnar 80-200mm f/4 T*........ Phew!! By the time you tell someone what lens it is, you've missed sunset!
 
Panamoz have the 35GM up at £1300 out of stock though.
 
still waiting for mine... I wonder if 35GM will be out of stock for 6-9 months after initial pre-orders shipped like the 24GM.
 
There's a thought provoking thread about the sharpest Nikon lens at f5.6. There's no qualification about across the frame sharpness being required or not or of edge or corner performance but the op does go on to say they don't care about bokeh, vignetting, distortion, field curvature and ca and anything else aren't mentioned.

If looking at variable aperture zooms sharpness I suppose sharpness at f5.6 (wide open at the long end) could be an issue but for primes and f2.8 zooms I'd expect them to be well into their stride at f5.6 and perhaps sharpness wont be an issue for me at least in the central area but performance towards the edges and into the corners could be under question as could all the other things such as ca, distortion, field curvature etc. and bokeh. And of course if sharpness is the only criteria some lenses are at their peak before f5.6 but of course using them at wider apertures where they may be sharper could have implications for DoF or even across the frame performance.

I can't think of a lens I've had that caused me to worry about sharpness at f5.6. Maybe the Sigma 28-300mm I had but the main reason for owning that lens was the do it all zoom range so I never expected sharpness to be all that good and acceptable for whole image viewing would be fine :D These days I just can't think of a lens I'd criticise at f5.6 and even old film era primes such as that Nippon Kogaku 50mm f1.4 are IMO plenty sharp at f5.6.

Is sharpness the overriding factor for you at mid apertures or would you balance that against other qualities and issues?
 
Last edited:
Want their an issue with the new 35mm. They had to recall them all and basically start again or something.
 
woof woof said:
Is sharpness the overriding factor for you at mid apertures or would you balance that against other qualities and issues?
Click to expand...
For my type of photography, I would expect a lens to be sharp across the frame by f5.6. At wide apertures edge sharpness could be an issue but not corners.
 
After just over a year ago you guys easily convinced me to jump ship and go Sony (A73) I've now made what seems to be a giant leap to the what is new to me A7rIV my hard drive has already gone weak at the knees after doing some test shots this weekend :),

But happy to report this camera is an absolute beast :) & I also sneaked in a Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art lens as well when I bought the body and damn this thing is sharpe :)

Any A7rIV tips and tricks people have always welcome I followed a few videos on youtube but set it up mostly the same as my 3 was.
 
robj20 said:
Imo just shoot uncompressed, then compress them on your pc. Why start with anything but the best file your can.
Click to expand...

I do agree, but I have found that sometimes 20fps has allowed me to catch the best facial expression (and without blinking) when it comes to the children moving about and such. Not often, but enough to make me want to stay at 20fps as even a noticeable reduction in quality I could deal with but a missed photo, well I guess there's not much anyone can do about that! lol But I'll keep this compression thing to mind, maybe I'll do some tests for myself to see how it may affect my types of photography.


nandbytes said:
The internet hyperbole will tell you all your shots will be ruined by compression.
Click to expand...

I did have a wee look online and it seems to be only the highest in contrast scenes where it can be an issue, such as around a bright light in a dark scene. There didn't seem to be very much on it with regard to the A9.
 
woof woof said:
There's a thought provoking thread about the sharpest Nikon lens at f5.6. There's no qualification about across the frame sharpness being required or not or of edge or corner performance but the op does go on to say they don't care about bokeh, vignetting, distortion, field curvature and ca and anything else aren't mentioned.

If looking at variable aperture zooms sharpness I suppose sharpness at f5.6 (wide open at the long end) could be an issue but for primes and f2.8 zooms I'd expect them to be well into their stride at f5.6 and perhaps sharpness wont be an issue for me at least in the central area but performance towards the edges and into the corners could be under question as could all the other things such as ca, distortion, field curvature etc. and bokeh. And of course if sharpness is the only criteria some lenses are at their peak before f5.6 but of course using them at wider apertures where they may be sharper could have implications for DoF or even across the frame performance.

I can't think of a lens I've had that caused me to worry about sharpness at f5.6. Maybe the Sigma 28-300mm I had but the main reason for owning that lens was the do it all zoom range so I never expected sharpness to be all that good and acceptable for whole image viewing would be fine :D These days I just can't think of a lens I'd criticise at f5.6 and even old film era primes such as that Nippon Kogaku 50mm f1.4 are IMO plenty sharp at f5.6.

Is sharpness the overriding factor for you at mid apertures or would you balance that against other qualities and issues?
Click to expand...

I did see this thread and I don't have much experience with Nikon F lenses apart from a couple zooms and couple primes when I tried D300/700 (both of which are hardly demanding in terms of resolution).

At f5.6, if I am stopping down that far, it's generally because I need the DoF and sharpness across the frame.
But in this day and age at least on e-mount even lenses like tamron 28-200mm or 24-105mm perform rather well in this respect. Especially at 40-60mm that thread is looking to cater for.
 
robj20 said:
Imo just shoot uncompressed, then compress them on your pc. Why start with anything but the best file your can.
Click to expand...
If you want the 20fps on the A9's you have to shoot compressed. With uncompressed you 'only' get 12fps (y)
 
Last edited:
gman said:
I did have a wee look online and it seems to be only the highest in contrast scenes where it can be an issue, such as around a bright light in a dark scene. There didn't seem to be very much on it with regard to the A9.
Click to expand...

A9 and A7s series is slightly odd ones in that they are not ISO invariant with lower dynamic range. So you can't push files as much as you could with other bodies.

Having said that I am yet come across a proper example of a shot ruined just by compression. Normally they are ruined way before then. Yes I can get compression artefacts to show by shooting my neighbours black cat sneaking around my garden at midnight and underexposing my shot 5 stops and they pushing it in post and showing you how the cat shot was ruined..... But if you are shooting like this I think you have bigger problems than compression :p
 
Stephen L said:
For my type of photography, I would expect a lens to be sharp across the frame by f5.6. At wide apertures edge sharpness could be an issue but not corners.
Click to expand...
In the vintage lenses thread the Nikon 28-105 is mentioned as being sharp. IME it didn't start to sharpen until f8 and at the long end peaked at f11 to f13. This is not unusual behaviour for older 4X+ zoom lenses. I tend to stick to f5.6 for peak sharpness with primes.
 
gman said:
I do agree, but I have found that sometimes 20fps has allowed me to catch the best facial expression (and without blinking) when it comes to the children moving about and such. Not often, but enough to make me want to stay at 20fps as even a noticeable reduction in quality I could deal with but a missed photo, well I guess there's not much anyone can do about that! lol But I'll keep this compression thing to mind, maybe I'll do some tests for myself to see how it may affect my types of photography.




I did have a wee look online and it seems to be only the highest in contrast scenes where it can be an issue, such as around a bright light in a dark scene. There didn't seem to be very much on it with regard to the A9.
Click to expand...
I tend to shoot a lot of landscape with the sun in view, and that's caused problems with compression. It certainly doesn't show up in every shot, but it was enough that I quickly stopped using it. Perhaps with the A7RIV it's less of a problem due to higher pixel count or better processing in camera? With the A7III it's definitely more of a problem for me than Anand's post suggests.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I tend to shoot a lot of landscape with the sun in view, and that's caused problems with compression. It certainly doesn't show up in every shot, but it was enough that I quickly stopped using it. Perhaps with the A7RIV it's less of a problem due to higher pixel count or better processing in camera? With the A7III it's definitely more of a problem for me than Anand's post suggests.
Click to expand...

As I suggested before it could have been caused by other settings in your camera.
You said you didn't have the examples any more since you deleted them, so I can't suggest much.
So far I haven't seen a concrete example from anyone that shows how compression ruined their shot(s).

Been using Sony since back when with A99 and A77 etc when all they had was compressed RAW. I don't think it's anything to do with A7RIV being special.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
As I suggested before it could have been caused by other settings in your camera.
You said you didn't have the examples any more since you deleted them, so I can't suggest much.
So far I haven't seen a concrete example from anyone that shows how compression ruined their shot(s).

Been using Sony since back when with A99 and A77 etc when all they had was compressed RAW. I don't think it's anything to do with A7RIV being special.
Click to expand...
I think your looking at it wrong, it doesn't ruin your photo from what I've read. It's a bit like saying a shot that was taken at ISO 200 is ruined Vs one taken at ISO 100. It's just a little bit worse and nothing you can do to get it back after the fact so where possible use ISO 100 (Uncompressed).

That's the way I see it anyway. You won't always notice it mostly because you won't have anything to directly compare it to unless you take the shot again with the other settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top