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

GeordieStew said:
I seem to get a magenta tone in Lightroom (no filters) on my 24-105, a7R IV after applying a Profile (any profile seems to have this happen). See the images on the bottom with no profile applied vs the selected image with a profile applied. Any recommendations or suggestions? Is it something I'm doing?

PZyVy9G.png
Click to expand...
Are you using Adobe profiles or Camera profiles? I always find Adobe profiles add magenta
 
GeordieStew said:
I've been using the Color Fidelity profiles. Are there any other recommended profiles to buy/try?
Click to expand...
I use those too and have been happy with them, if anything I find myself adding a bit of magenta to the WB. I'm not sure why you're having issues with those profiles, is it just this lens that you're having issues with?
 
Has anyone bought/tried the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 yet? Just curious what it's like (y)
 
GeordieStew said:
I'll try with my 20 f/1.8 and report back. If it's the lens, anything I can do?
Click to expand...
I’d be surprised if it is, I can’t think why it would do that. If a lens was going to influence colour you’d see if on the unedited version too, unless it’s some software glitch that interferes with the way color fidelity/lightroom applies the profile. Does it do this with Adobe and camera profiles too?
 
GeordieStew said:
I seem to get a magenta tone in Lightroom (no filters) on my 24-105, a7R IV after applying a Profile (any profile seems to have this happen). See the images on the bottom with no profile applied vs the selected image with a profile applied. Any recommendations or suggestions? Is it something I'm doing?

PZyVy9G.png
Click to expand...
sure its not just CA?
the 24-105mm does exhibit CA against bright light. its pretty normal for this lens.
 
nandbytes said:
sure its not just CA?
the 24-105mm does exhibit CA against bright light. its pretty normal for this lens.
Click to expand...
I considered that, but then why is it no present before he adds the profile?

@GeordieStew on the examples on the strip (ie without the profile added) do you have lens/CA adjustments on, and is this different when you add the Color Fidelity Profile?
 
Just to check language - definitely a profile and not a filter? Some filters untick lens correction I've noticed, so CA and distortion re-appear when applying filter.
 
snerkler said:
I considered that, but then why is it no present before he adds the profile?

@GeordieStew on the examples on the strip (ie without the profile added) do you have lens/CA adjustments on, and is this different when you add the Color Fidelity Profile?
Click to expand...

no idea what the profile does or how it changes colours.
 
nandbytes said:
looks fine to me tbh... looks like CA in bright areas, nothing out of the ordinary.

View attachment 317775
Click to expand...
That looks different to what GeordieStew is getting, as you can see from the thumbnail strip the selected one is magenta (and brighter) and the ones either side look like yours. This would suggest software/profile issue rather than lens?

B3AB2F2D-3387-4EEA-AE29-7CC60515C8F5.jpeg
 
snerkler said:
That looks different to what GeordieStew is getting, as you can see from the thumbnail strip the selected one is magenta (and brighter) and the ones either side look like yours. This would suggest software/profile issue rather than lens?

View attachment 317776
Click to expand...
As you can see in my screenshot I'm just using the "camera standard" profile which is what I normally use. It seems to match (or closely enough) to Sony's own output.

Also as you can see in my screenshot I have pulled back highlights to make any issues in bright areas more obvious.

I don't see anything out of the ordinary.

GeordieStew said:
Should I be using the in camera correction? Or rely on Lightroom/PP?
Click to expand...

I turn off all in camera corrections and deal with it in PP.
 
Last edited:
GeordieStew said:
Definitely a profile.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DZbWtrXTw3C75Ap6C0tb9BwCsbhF_QgM/view?usp=sharing that's a link to the ARW file. Not sure if anyone can check it?
Click to expand...
I can't actually try Color Fidelity as it's camera specific and I only have it for the A9-II, however I've tried camera standard and Adobe Colour. With Adobe there is a teeny tiny hint of a purple fringe on those white parts of the sea, and I mean teeny tiny, but on the camera standard there's none (to my eyes), as shown below (1:1 crop). What I did notice was that if you get aggressive with the highlight adjustment slider than did introduce a bit of magenta. Have you altered the highlights colour gradin or anything?
Screenshot 2021-05-06 at 16.47.17.png





If you want me to check it with the Color Fidelity profile you'll have to send the profile over as well so that I can add it to LR (y)


Screenshot 2021-05-06 at 16.40.25 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Just testing my ND filter in my garden, focusing between the sky and the top of some buildings. Without the filter and at F11 and ISO 100, manual mode, I set it so that the exposure compensation was dead centre at M.M 0.0 and it gave me 1/250th sec shutter speed. I autofocused and then switched focus to manual and screwed the filter on. Apparently for 1/250th sec starting exposure it's meant to be 4 seconds when the filter is on. But when I put the filter on and dialled in my exposure, the exposure compensation once at M.M 0.0 was only giving me 2 seconds. How come?
 
Last edited:
Merlin5 said:
Just testing my ND filter in my garden, focusing between the sky and the top of some buildings. Without the filter and at F11 and ISO 100, manual mode, I set it so that the exposure compensation was dead centre at M.M 0.0 and it gave me 1/250th sec shutter speed. I autofocused and then switched focus to manual and screwed the filter on. Apparently for 1/250th sec starting exposure it's meant to be 4 seconds when the filter is on. But when I put the filter on and dialled in my exposure, the exposure compensation once at M.M 0.0 was only giving me 2 seconds. How come?
Click to expand...
Either the filter is wrong and it's 'only' 9 stops instead of 10 (not unheard of) or the weather changed.

Edit: could also be the metering, did you check the histogram of each?
 
Last edited:
Just some more A7 and Takumar 50mm f1.4 pictures.

Frothy stringy residue stuff and me :D

K4mPXP1.jpg


The pub. You can sit outside with the sea just feet away and if you like you can eat fish and chips with the fish being caught just outside. You often see people fishing off the beach but I've no idea if cod come in that close. You can also see people launch and recover boats off the beach.

They do a nice hot chocolate and the steps up to the top of the cliff are just behind the car park, you can see a bloke in a blue coat just at the top.

7hmlkDt.jpg


Boats and pier.

ROuKBhZ.jpg


It seems to be a nice lens.
 
Last edited:
One last one. The beach comber. I don't know what she was gathering but she seemed to have quite a bag full. Seaweed maybe? Mrs WW made some seaweed fertiliser from a recipe she found online. You have to leave it in a bottle to stew for ages and it absolutely stinks.

Anyway.

MuMuT6n.jpg
 
snerkler said:
Either the filter is wrong and it's 'only' 9 stops instead of 10 (not unheard of) or the weather changed.

Edit: could also be the metering, did you check the histogram of each?
Click to expand...

Thanks snerkler. Just tested again. I hadn't looked at my histogram, but I did this time. Weather changed a bit, new exposure was 1/400th shutter speed which is 2.6 seconds according to my ND filter app. I set shutter speed to 2.5 seconds and the exposure meter gave me +0.7 and the histogram looked about the same as it did before the filter went on. Does that sound about right? The sky and clouds came out ok though the top of the buildings below are a bit on the dark side.
 
Merlin5 said:
Thanks snerkler. Just tested again. I hadn't looked at my histogram, but I did this time. Weather changed a bit, new exposure was 1/400th shutter speed which is 2.6 seconds according to my ND filter app. I set shutter speed to 2.5 seconds and the exposure meter gave me +0.7 and the histogram looked about the same as it did before the filter went on. Does that sound about right? The sky and clouds came out ok though the top of the buildings below are a bit on the dark side.
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell if it's 'right' or not. When I used to use strong ND filters I just used to switch to manual and adjust according to the histogram - pretty much how I'd shoot manual without a filter.
 
LeeRatters said:
It's hard to tell if it's 'right' or not. When I used to use strong ND filters I just used to switch to manual and adjust according to the histogram - pretty much how I'd shoot manual without a filter.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'll try that. I've never really paid attention to the histogram while shooting, I really will from now on. I tried maximum f stop for my lens just now, F16 and did an 8 second exposure. Sky and clouds came out nice, histogram looked about right. But if I wanted to blur the clouds, wouldn't I need a longer exposure or do I just need fast moving clouds?
 
Merlin5 said:
But if I wanted to blur the clouds, wouldn't I need a longer exposure or do I just need fast moving clouds?
Click to expand...

I think the first option is a possibility but the faster moving clouds are a bit above our pay grade but if you can manage it I have a bucket of water you might turn into wine for me :D

Other than that. I'm glad you're getting there with the filter :D
 
Merlin5 said:
Thanks snerkler. Just tested again. I hadn't looked at my histogram, but I did this time. Weather changed a bit, new exposure was 1/400th shutter speed which is 2.6 seconds according to my ND filter app. I set shutter speed to 2.5 seconds and the exposure meter gave me +0.7 and the histogram looked about the same as it did before the filter went on. Does that sound about right? The sky and clouds came out ok though the top of the buildings below are a bit on the dark side.
Click to expand...
Difficult to say 100% as you have no control over the light when shooting outdoors. Like Lee I use the histogram to make sure exposure is what I want. I do the 10 stop calculation to get me in the ball park of where I want to be and then adjust as I see fit. I've never actually tested whether I get exactly 10 stops with my big stopper, but it's there or there abouts so never worried about it.
 
woof woof said:
I think the first option is a possibility but the faster moving clouds are a bit above our pay grade but if you can manage it I have a bucket of water you might turn into wine for me :D

Other than that. I'm glad you're getting there with the filter :D
Click to expand...

Lol yeah,trying to understand how it works. I'm fine with long nighttime exposures without filters but it's a slightly different ball game with a filter on. But a longer exposure would presumably overexpose my photo as my exposure compensation would start going towards +1.0 or +2.0?
 
snerkler said:
Difficult to say 100% as you have no control over the light when shooting outdoors. Like Lee I use the histogram to make sure exposure is what I want. I do the 10 stop calculation to get me in the ball park of where I want to be and then adjust as I see fit. I've never actually tested whether I get exactly 10 stops with my big stopper, but it's there or there abouts so never worried about it.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll follow what you and Lee suggest then and use the calculation more as a rough guide and eyeball it with the histogram.
 
I know we all maybe try to get things right but maybe if we try something and then try something else for the second shot we shouldn't beat ourselves up too much.
 
woof woof said:
I know we all maybe try to get things right but maybe if we try something and then try something else for the second shot we shouldn't beat ourselves up too much.
Click to expand...
This is the beauty of digital, you know instantly if you've messed it up and can try again. Even if done 'right' the weather gods can still throw it off, especially with exposures of 1 minute+
 
Guys,

I'm confused about the Sigma 35mm f1.4 as there seem to be different looking lenses out there.

There's this one which lacks an aperture ring and seems to have a little window...

www.parkcameras.com

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Sony E | Park Cameras

With a nine rounded blade diaphragm the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens for Sony E-mount provides silky round bokeh with a bright aperture. Order now.
www.parkcameras.com www.parkcameras.com

I thought that one could be aps-c but the script says aps-c and ff.

and there's this one which has an aperture ring...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=eXwxD0ErDig&feature=emb_logo

Can someone explain?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Guys,

I'm confused about the Sigma 35mm f1.4 as there seem to be different looking lenses out there.

There's this one which lacks an aperture ring and seems to have a little window...

www.parkcameras.com

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Sony E | Park Cameras

With a nine rounded blade diaphragm the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens for Sony E-mount provides silky round bokeh with a bright aperture. Order now.
www.parkcameras.com www.parkcameras.com

I thought that one could be aps-c but the script says aps-c and ff.

and there's this one which has an aperture ring...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=eXwxD0ErDig&feature=emb_logo

Can someone explain?
Click to expand...

the one you linked to in parkcameras is basically the old DSLR designed lens with a permanent e-mount adapter stuck to it.

the one Manny's reviewed is the newly designed mirrorless version announced recently.
 
woof woof said:
Guys,

I'm confused about the Sigma 35mm f1.4 as there seem to be different looking lenses out there.

There's this one which lacks an aperture ring and seems to have a little window...

www.parkcameras.com

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Sony E | Park Cameras

With a nine rounded blade diaphragm the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens for Sony E-mount provides silky round bokeh with a bright aperture. Order now.
www.parkcameras.com www.parkcameras.com

I thought that one could be aps-c but the script says aps-c and ff.

and there's this one which has an aperture ring...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=eXwxD0ErDig&feature=emb_logo

Can someone explain?
Click to expand...

Aperture ring is new version. No aperture ring is old version they often advertise the Sony old version using images of the Nikon version which meansit doesn’t show the built in adaptor which makes it more confusing as per the Park cameras ad you linked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top