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

[nandbytes]

Looks good. What I don’t understand reading that is what the difference is between DR, and the DR at pixel level? I just thought DR was DR

I thought the A9ii shared the same sensor as the A9 so I assume it’s processing that gives it it’s better DR and noise handling?

I haven't read the whole article but if I were making an "educated guess" the DR at pixel level is how much DR each pixel could provide under ideal conditions with unlimited processing power, memory etc. The actual DR is what you get because of Sony trying to maximise readout speed with the limitation of processing.

A9ii does share same sensor but the processing has been improved slightly hence slightly better DR, noise performance and AF performance too.

 

[nandbytes]

New toy has arrived. Feels nice and solid.
What's everyone using the button on the lens for? I can't think of a use that I don't already have served by another button.

View attachment 311511

On A7RIV I have it set to APS-C crop mode. On A7C its mostly left unused.

 

[snerkler]

New toy has arrived. Feels nice and solid.
What's everyone using the button on the lens for? I can't think of a use that I don't already have served by another button.

View attachment 311511

I’ve never used the function buttons on lenses.

 

[f/1.2]

New toy has arrived. Feels nice and solid.
What's everyone using the button on the lens for? I can't think of a use that I don't already have served by another button.

View attachment 311511

You can set up the button for eye a.f, focus hold etc.

 

[robj20]

You can set up the button for eye a.f, focus hold etc.

Already got that sorted with the buttons on the camera. It's funny how the C has so few buttons yet I can't think of a single think I don't have covered.

 

[f/1.2]

Already got that sorted with the buttons on the camera. It's funny how the C has so few buttons yet I can't think of a single think I don't have covered.

Yeah eye af via the lens button isn’t as useful as it used to be pre real time a.f

 

[robj20]

Yeah eye af via the lens button isn’t as useful as it used to be pre real time a.f

Yeah I have Tracking+focus set to the Af-On button, perfect setup. Overrides my default DMF setting on the shutter button, so I basically have all focusing modes available all the time.
It's been a game changer, one minute I'm shooting a static object the next I can be tracking the 3 year olds eye and nail focus no matter what he does.

 

[gman]

I bought the Sigma from @f/2.8. Hasn’t been off my camera since. Love it, had no issues with af so far either, if that helps?

Thanks, that's good to know!

Also bear in mind it's not a DN lens so it's an old converted design so AF usually suffers a bit there as well.

I never knew this, I'll need to bear this in mind. Thanks!

 

[gman]

It's very good lens and its much better on mirrorless bodies than it ever was on DSLR's as there is no issues with a.f accuracy. I only recently sold mine, image quality is great, yeah it doesn't have as fast a.f as the 35GM, the Sigma 35 f/1.2 or the very fast Sony 35 f/1.8 but I used mine for a couple of years for weddings and had no compliants really. I only ended up moving it on as it's quite a big, heavy lens for 35mm and I had stopped using it.

Thanks for the info, it gave me something to think about.

The Sony 35mm 1.4 GM is too much money for my casual use, but I'm curious about the Sony 1.8. Will I notice 2/3 stops difference? But I can't help but feel that 1.8 won't be special enough to justify a separate lens over my 24-105mm.

I never considered the Sigma 35mm 1.2, but it can be had for around a grand used, that's tempting seeing as it seemingly has an excellent AF system (ultrasonic stepping motor?) and is considered a top notch lens. That's only £350 more than the Sigma 1.4, which is what, a few bottles of whisky?

I can see it being an epic lens with the A7Riv, but I suppose what I'm really asking is how will the Sigma 35mm 1.4 pair with the A9 and will me camera be able to take full advantage of this lens?

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

But I can't help but feel that 1.8 won't be special enough to justify a separate lens over my 24-105mm.

I have the 24-105mm and the 85mm f1.8 and the 85mm is a great lens even though I've got the 24-105mm.
I'm also considering the 35mm f1.8 as an additional lens and think it would be a worthwhile addition.

 

[gman]

I have the 24-105mm and the 85mm f1.8 and the 85mm is a great lens even though I've got the 24-105mm.
I'm also considering the 35mm f1.8 as an additional lens and think it would be a worthwhile addition.

What's your thoughts on the Sigma 35mm 1.2 though?

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

What's your thoughts on the Sigma 35mm 1.2 though?

No thoughts other than I couldn't justify paying the money for it.....and I doubt I'd need f1.2
Different though if I was using it professionally.

 

[f/1.2]

Thanks for the info, it gave me something to think about.

The Sony 35mm 1.4 GM is too much money for my casual use, but I'm curious about the Sony 1.8. Will I notice 2/3 stops difference? But I can't help but feel that 1.8 won't be special enough to justify a separate lens over my 24-105mm.

I never considered the Sigma 35mm 1.2, but it can be had for around a grand used, that's tempting seeing as it seemingly has an excellent AF system (ultrasonic stepping motor?) and is considered a top notch lens. That's only £350 more than the Sigma 1.4, which is what, a few bottles of whisky?

I can see it being an epic lens with the A7Riv, but I suppose what I'm really asking is how will the Sigma 35mm 1.4 pair with the A9 and will me camera be able to take full advantage of this lens?

The 35mm f/1.8 is a good wee lens, it's cheapish, has fast a.f and focuses close, bokeh is horrible though.

The Sigma 35 f/1.2 has fast a.f and excellent I.Q but weights a metric ton and is very cumbersome for a 35mm.

If you can stretch to the Sigma 35 f/1.2 at £1000 might as well go the whole hog and pick up the 35GM at £1300 grey, or wait until it drops in price a little more.

 

[f/1.2]

Sony people - opinions on .com .uk .co.uk etc.

Currently doing a logo/name as I am now doing some work alongside a new equestrian business that is in its early stages.

Ignore the dodgy image and text line up - its a stock image and preview copy only. The J will be properly blended in - was just a rush job before I decide.

I kind of don't like the .co.uk one. Not sure why - just like something more short and snappy, especially as the name is short.

What do people think of .com or .uk?

Sorry but the logo is horrible and having a number in a domain name always looks a bit odd, JAYX2A doesn't seem relevant at all to a photography site it reads more like a crap cheap personal car reg. If it is a U.K website, you should always go .co.uk were possible its only a small ranking factor but all the small ones add up.

 

[robj20]

Looks like the A7iii is getting the FTP feature. IMO makes the second card slot almost redundant.

 

[f/1.2]

Looks like the A7iii is getting the FTP feature. IMO makes the second card slot almost redundant.

Not even close

 

[nandbytes]

Thanks for the info, it gave me something to think about.

The Sony 35mm 1.4 GM is too much money for my casual use, but I'm curious about the Sony 1.8. Will I notice 2/3 stops difference? But I can't help but feel that 1.8 won't be special enough to justify a separate lens over my 24-105mm.

I never considered the Sigma 35mm 1.2, but it can be had for around a grand used, that's tempting seeing as it seemingly has an excellent AF system (ultrasonic stepping motor?) and is considered a top notch lens. That's only £350 more than the Sigma 1.4, which is what, a few bottles of whisky?

I can see it being an epic lens with the A7Riv, but I suppose what I'm really asking is how will the Sigma 35mm 1.4 pair with the A9 and will me camera be able to take full advantage of this lens?

What is special?
If you want special you should buy something like the 100mm f2.8 STF

Sigma 35mm/1.2 is humongous.
The 35mm/1.4 version works well enough for stills but isn't great for video.

Basically I think 35GM is the best option if you can afford the money. 35mm/1.2 is the best option if you have the money and the spare wheelbarrow to carry it.
Otherwise go with one of the f1.8 versions from Sony or samyang or the sigma 35mm f2.

I personally wouldn't buy the sigma 35mm f1.4. it's large with a hollow adapter that makes it front heavy and also the heaviest of f1.4 options. AF in video isn't great either. The f1.4 isn't worth it for me at least at 35mm to put up with all that over the f1.8 versions. Plus I didn't buy mirrorless to put DSLR lenses on it

 

[Deleted member 34016]

I see Sony are releasing a 50mm f1.2 do we really need f1.2- I have a f1.4 lens and its enough I feel

The Sony 50mm f1.2 GM Will Need To be Less Clinical, More Character (thephoblographer.com)

 

[f/1.2]

I see Sony are releasing a 50mm f1.2 do we really need f1.2- I have a f1.4 lens and its enough I feel

The Sony 50mm f1.2 GM Will Need To be Less Clinical, More Character (thephoblographer.com)

Yes we absolutely do!

 

[nandbytes]

I see Sony are releasing a 50mm f1.2 do we really need f1.2- I have a f1.4 lens and its enough I feel

The Sony 50mm f1.2 GM Will Need To be Less Clinical, More Character (thephoblographer.com)

F1.2 seems to be the new f1.4 thanks to canon and Nikon. No to mention it costs over £2k for a 50mm prime.
Probably not a lens I'd buy but I can see why they making one to keep up with the competition.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Yes we absolutely do!

You may do Tommy- Personally I'll stick with my f1.4 lenses

 

[f/1.2]

What is special?
If you want special you should buy something like the 100mm f2.8 STF

Sigma 35mm/1.2 is humongous.
The 35mm/1.4 version works well enough for stills but isn't great for video.

Basically I think 35GM is the best option if you can afford the money. 35mm/1.2 is the best option if you have the money and the spare wheelbarrow to carry it.
Otherwise go with one of the f1.8 versions from Sony or samyang or the sigma 35mm f2.

I personally wouldn't buy the sigma 35mm f1.4. it's large with a hollow adapter that makes it front heavy and also the heaviest of f1.4 options. AF in video isn't great either. The f1.4 isn't worth it for me at least at 35mm to put up with all that over the f1.8 versions. Plus I didn't buy mirrorless to put DSLR lenses on it

Yeah agree the GM lens is the best option but the Sigma f/1.4 version is the best value for money, yeah it's too big for what it is, but it's perfomrance is very good for such a low price.

 

[f/1.2]

You may do Tommy- Personally I'll stick with my f1.4 lenses

You say that now, once they are available though.........

 

[Deleted member 34016]

You say that now, once they are available though.........

Yes, but at what cost ????

 

[nandbytes]

Yes we absolutely do!

Would have preferred a 85mm f1.2 myself being my most used prime lens. But then it'd cost like £3k.... So I guess it doesn't matter what f1.2 prime they make

 

[f/1.2]

Yes, but at what cost ????

You know as well as I do that regardless of cost once it becomes available and the reviews start to hit you are gonna think to yourself this old f/1.4 lens just doesn't cut it any more. Cost is realtive anyway sure what else would you burn the money on? Treating the wife to a new sofa, screw that.

Would have preferred a 85mm f1.2 myself being my most used prime lens. But then it'd cost like £3k.... So I guess it doesn't matter what f1.2 prime they make

Not sure I would be as intrested in an 85 f/1.2, not because of the cost probably because you are already getting good seperation at 85mm the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 for me doesn't stand out as much as it does at 50mm. That's not to say I wouldn't get one if it was available but for me 50 f/1.2 just seems more exciting.

 

[snerkler]

What's your thoughts on the Sigma 35mm 1.2 though?

It's a monster. If you want to keep cost and weight down have you considered the Samyang 35mm f1.8? I tend to like the rendering of the Samyangs even if build quality doesn't feel the best.

Looks like the A7iii is getting the FTP feature. IMO makes the second card slot almost redundant.

What's FTP?

Would have preferred a 85mm f1.2 myself being my most used prime lens. But then it'd cost like £3k.... So I guess it doesn't matter what f1.2 prime they make

Do you really see a difference between f1.2 and f1.4? I honestly can't fault the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN, can't see me ever getting swayed by another 85mm.

 

[nandbytes]

Do you really see a difference between f1.2 and f1.4? I honestly can't fault the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN, can't see me ever getting swayed by another 85mm.

heavier and my bank balance 3 times lower..... oh you mean picture wise... there is a small difference in DoF but yes the sigma 85 DN does make it hard to give up the size.

 

[NewBeetle]

What's FTP?

 

[snerkler]

View attachment 311528

Ahh OK. I never use this hence not knowing what it is

 

[Stephen L]

F

Ahh OK. I never use this hence not knowing what it is

FTP = File Transfer Protocol

 

[woof woof]

Thanks for the info, it gave me something to think about.

The Sony 35mm 1.4 GM is too much money for my casual use, but I'm curious about the Sony 1.8. Will I notice 2/3 stops difference? But I can't help but feel that 1.8 won't be special enough to justify a separate lens over my 24-105mm.

One thing which helped me decide what aperture I wanted was taking a series of pictures starting from f1.2 and stopping down through each setting to a point at which I thought the aperture setting didn't matter anymore.

There's also the issue of light gathering but I'd guess that's less of an issue than DoF? But that's up to you and in what light you take pictures. Assuming that f1.2 or f1.4 isn't needed for light gathering ability and f1.8 or f2 would do for that I would advise anyone to take comparison pictures and decide if f1.8 or f2 is enough or if f1.4 or even f1.2 is wanted. Next is the question of bokeh look.

There's a Sony 35mm f1.8 thread at Fred Miranda with lots of sample pictures.

Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 Images Thread

The Sony 35mm f1.8 is fast to focus and has a nice close focus ability which comes in handy for people like me who like pictures of flowers, leaves and the like but another way to do this could be to carry a close focus filter which I often do when using my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4.

Good luck choosing.

 

[robj20]

Not even close

Why do you say that. What else could you use a second card slot for that FTP couldn't replicate.

 

[f/1.2]

Why do you say that. What else could you use a second card slot for that FTP couldn't replicate.

Have you ever used FTP? Try it and see.

 

[snerkler]

One thing which helped me decide what aperture I wanted was taking a series of pictures starting from f1.2 and stopping down through each setting to a point at which I thought the aperture setting didn't matter anymore.

There's also the issue of light gathering but I'd guess that's less of an issue than DoF? But that's up to you and in what light you take pictures. Assuming that f1.2 or f1.4 isn't needed for light gathering ability and f1.8 or f2 would do for that I would advise anyone to take comparison pictures and decide if f1.8 or f2 is enough or if f1.4 or even f1.2 is wanted. Next is the question of bokeh look.

There's a Sony 35mm f1.8 thread at Fred Miranda with lots of sample pictures.

Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 Images Thread

The Sony 35mm f1.8 is fast to focus and has a nice close focus ability which comes in handy for people like me who like pictures of flowers, leaves and the like but another way to do this could be to carry a close focus filter which I often do when using my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4.

Good luck choosing.

The Samyang has nice 'pop'/subject isolation for a 35mm imo

https://flic.kr/p/2jPATzo

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sonyalphablog/50421796988/in/album-72157716265322496/

 

[robj20]

Have you ever used FTP? Try it and see.

Yes works perfectly, take a photo and it instantly transfers to my phone.
It then syncs to my NAS. So I no longer need to plug my camera in to transfer photos they're already there when I get on the PC.

 

[snerkler]

Yes works perfectly, take a photo and it instantly transfers to my phone.
It then syncs to my NAS. So I no longer need to plug my camera in to transfer photos they're already there when I get on the PC.

Can phones accept and transfer raw?

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

Yes we absolutely do!

For the light?
if for anything else, Would your clients see the difference?

 

[robj20]

Can phones accept and transfer raw?

Yes.
I have it set as follows.

Phone has an FTP client running.
Phone is set to WiFi hotspot.
Camera connects to hotspot automatically.
Camera syncs RAWs via FTP to a folder on my phone called "FTP".
My phone via mobile data then syncs that folder to my NAS at home.
So basically any photo I take on the camera as long as FTP is turned on and my phone's hotspot and FTP client are running will automatically upload to my NAS.

 

[nandbytes]

Yes.
I have it set as follows.

Phone has an FTP client running.
Phone is set to WiFi hotspot.
Camera connects to hotspot automatically.
Camera syncs RAWs via FTP to a folder on my phone called "FTP".
My phone via mobile data then syncs that folder to my NAS at home.
So basically any photo I take on the camera as long as FTP is turned on and my phone's hotspot and FTP client are running will automatically upload to my NAS.

that'd just chew through your phones battery and data no?