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

Mike.P said:
For me it's all about the amount of MP ... for instance I shot this on my 7D MKII which is a 20MP crop sensor. the picture is then cropped to over 100% which left me with a 300 KB file, I would have liked to have gone in more but it just turned to mush. If I had done the same on the a9 which is half the MP in APS-C mode it just wouldn't have stood up at all. Ideally I would just get the A1 but I'm not prepared to spend 6k on a camera body.

Apart from that it's a fantastic camera and the 200-600mm is unbeatable in any other system IMO.
Click to expand...
One thing I'm liking about my a7R4a is that I can shoot in APSC mode at 26mp
More than my a6600 had.
Probably the quality of the pixels isn't as good as the a9 - I don't know :thinking:
 
trevorbray said:
Wow. !! Gosh. !!
Good thing I’m no longer a 70-200 kind of guy.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why the Tamron was that bad in the test, my experience has been much more positive. I’ve not shot any running for a while though, will be interesting to see how it performs when I do.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I don’t know why the Tamron was that bad in the test, my experience has been much more positive. I’ve shot any running for a while though, will be interesting to see how it performs when I do.
Click to expand...

I had good success with it shooting my son and that too on an A7RIV.
He's pretty erratic I'd say.
 
nandbytes said:
I had good success with it shooting my son and that too on an A7RIV.
He's pretty erratic I'd say.
Click to expand...
In context......... it's not about your success with the tamron , but compered against the other 2 lenses,
its worse.
 
wambam said:
In context......... it's not about your success with the tamron , but compered against the other 2 lenses,
its worse.
Click to expand...
Had the original GM too. I didn't notice a big enough difference in AF hit rate between the two. Funnily enough I think Manny was one of the people that claimed the original GM had AF consistency issues and that tamron was possible better.

View: https://youtu.be/rxffZtqKbls


So in context..... I suggest it's perhaps better to find a more reliable, consistent reviewer of these lenses than concluding tamron is worse.

The new GM lens might well be better than both but I don't think tamron is as bad in comparison to older GM lens in terms of hit rate.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Had the original GM too. I didn't notice a big enough difference in AF hit rate between the two. Funnily enough I think Manny was one of the people that claimed the original GM had AF consistency issues and that tamron was possible better.

View: https://youtu.be/rxffZtqKbls


So in context..... I suggest it's perhaps better to find a more reliable, consistent reviewer of these lenses than concluding tamron is worse.

The new GM lens might well be better than both but I don't think tamron is as bad in comparison to older GM lens in terms of hit rate.
Click to expand...
You don't think ! .. Ok but we can see that the "reviewers" ....say the tamrom is worse at movement towards the lens blah blah
so depends wether you want 10 shots in focus or 30 maybe?.
not done the maths but i'm sure you will.
 
wambam said:
You don't think ! .. Ok but we can see that the "reviewers" ....say the tamrom is worse at movement towards the lens blah blah
so depends wether you want 10 shots in focus or 30 maybe?.
not done the maths but i'm sure you will.
Click to expand...
Haven't seen any credible ones so far claim that tamron is considerably worst than first GM.
(I admit I haven't watched all the reviews, no where close, so if you know any feel free to point us to it)

I haven't done the maths either because I am not a technical reviewer with no intention of being one at the moment. I wouldn't keep a lens with 30% hit rate. My bar these days is at least 80%. Tamron and first GM lens both satisfied that.
I don't really have a like for like comparison because I used the first GM lens on A7Riii and used tamron on A7RIV.
 
Last edited:
wambam said:
In context......... it's not about your success with the tamron , but compered against the other 2 lenses,
its worse.
Click to expand...
I disagree, 60% hit rate is poor whether it's compared to other lenses or not. There's plenty of reviews showing that the Tamron has an equal or better hit rate to the Mark I so it should be in the high 90's percentage wise (y)
 
snerkler said:
I disagree, 60% hit rate is poor whether it's compared to other lenses or not. There's plenty of reviews showing that the Tamron has an equal or better hit rate to the Mark I so it should be in the high 90's percentage wise (y)
Click to expand...
Yeah, including Manny himself saying tamron is better when it was released :ROFLMAO:
May be the lens has short half life, you should make sure yours isn't deteriorating :p

Like I said earlier on this thread it seems to me all the wrong people seem to get thier hands on review copies first. And the likes of people who do a thorough job don't get it for reviews.
 
Last edited:
£722 for that Samyang 24-70 f2.8. Good price.
Ring switchable between focus and aperture.
Still can't figure out what Optimized for A7c, A7siii and A1 means though, maybe focus related?
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Credit cards are made for the reason
And I hear you only need one kidney to live anyway.
The question is can you now live without an A1+70-200GM in your life....
Click to expand...
My R4 does all I need, and I love the 35 (and 50) GM
Pretty happy with the colours as well.


Storage tanks.jpg by Trevor, on Flickr
 
woof woof said:
What's there to hate about the A9?

Just asking so that I'll have a reason not to buy one, other than being stingy :D
Click to expand...

I would have liked better dynamic range and also agree that shadow recovery isn't always the best. I try to overcome this by using slightly less conventional editing and in most occasions this works. Also, having almost every photo (even the fast action ones) in focus helps tip this shortcoming for me as well.
 
gman said:
I would have liked better dynamic range and also agree that shadow recovery isn't always the best. I try to overcome this by using slightly less conventional editing and in most occasions this works. Also, having almost every photo (even the fast action ones) in focus helps tip this shortcoming for me as well.
Click to expand...
It’s in difficult lighting conditions I find shadow recovery isn’t as great as I was used to with Nikon d750/d810. The other week I was photographing a deer that was in shadow under a tree with fog behind it. I forgot to add positive exposure compensation so the deer was underexposed. Upping the shadows/exposure seemed to introduce noise and lose details quite quickly.

Sony A9 2021



To be fair I’m probably expecting to much in this situation. In similar conditions (albeit with a little side lighting breaking through) at the same location a years ago I didn’t recover shadows for detail on the deer.

Nikon D810 2018



Starting to think it’s just being out several times in poor light.
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
It’s in difficult lighting conditions I find shadow recovery isn’t as great as I was used to with Nikon d750/d810. The other week I was photographing a deer that was in shadow under a tree with fog behind it. I forgot to add positive exposure compensation so the deer was underexposed. Upping the shadows/exposure seemed to introduce noise and lose details quite quickly.

Sony A9 2021



To be fair I’m probably expecting to much in this situation. In similar conditions (albeit with a little side lighting breaking through) at the same location a years ago I didn’t recover shadows for detail on the deer.

Nikon D810 2018



Starting to think it’s just being out several times in poor light.
Click to expand...


Interesting. Once I get the time to use my camera more I'm going to experiment with some very mild bracketing and the A9's fast FPS to see if it is possible to get a slight increase in dynamic range with very slow subjects, as in very slow! lol
 
Mike.P said:
For me it's all about the amount of MP ... for instance I shot this on my 7D MKII which is a 20MP crop sensor. the picture is then cropped to over 100% which left me with a 300 KB file, I would have liked to have gone in more but it just turned to mush. If I had done the same on the a9 which is half the MP in APS-C mode it just wouldn't have stood up at all. Ideally I would just get the A1 but I'm not prepared to spend 6k on a camera body.

Apart from that it's a fantastic camera and the 200-600mm is unbeatable in any other system IMO.
Click to expand...
Topaz gigapixel completely solves this issue. I can crop an a9 image to 90% then blow it back up to 6000x4000 in gigapixel. You need to be careful with the settings, as it can turn the subject into a cartoon, but it really does work very well.
 
It's interesting that shadow recovery is an issue, I went out this morning with the a9 and 200-600mm and a black blob flew past me. As there was nothing else about much I took a few practice shots at it thinking it was a Magpie or Blackbird.


DSC04973 by Michael Pursey, on Flickr

I was quite surprised when I processed it ... shadow recovery was pretty good as well.


M5DSC04973 by Michael Pursey, on Flickr
 
I was going to ask about the AF on the 70-180mm as I've been toying with one but I'd read a couple of reviews that said the AF wasn't that fast, I have a new puppy and struggling with shots of him running towards the camera with the 28-200mm while the 100-400mm is a bit long.
 
Mike.P said:
It's interesting that shadow recovery is an issue, I went out this morning with the a9 and 200-600mm and a black blob flew past me. As there was nothing else about much I took a few practice shots at it thinking it was a Magpie or Blackbird.


DSC04973 by Michael Pursey, on Flickr

I was quite surprised when I processed it ... shadow recovery was pretty good as well.


M5DSC04973 by Michael Pursey, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Thats some good shadow recovery. The only thing I can think of is you’re at 1/1250 ISO100 f6.3. My image was at 1/400 ISO640 f5.6. That’s roughly 4 stops difference so perhaps that makes a difference in shadow recovery.

Maybe my processing wasn’t right. What I’ve ended up with isn’t unusable for sharing on the web so perhaps it’s not as bad as I think. It’s only when pixel peeping you can really see it noise that’s induced. Maybe I’m reading too much into it. I’m sure this thread makes us all doubt the ability/performance of some cameras/lenses and that they are worse than they actually are.
 
gman said:
I would have liked better dynamic range and also agree that shadow recovery isn't always the best. I try to overcome this by using slightly less conventional editing and in most occasions this works. Also, having almost every photo (even the fast action ones) in focus helps tip this shortcoming for me as well.
Click to expand...

rob-nikon said:
It’s in difficult lighting conditions I find shadow recovery isn’t as great as I was used to with Nikon d750/d810. The other week I was photographing a deer that was in shadow under a tree with fog behind it. I forgot to add positive exposure compensation so the deer was underexposed. Upping the shadows/exposure seemed to introduce noise and lose details quite quickly.

Sony A9 2021



To be fair I’m probably expecting to much in this situation. In similar conditions (albeit with a little side lighting breaking through) at the same location a years ago I didn’t recover shadows for detail on the deer.

Nikon D810 2018



Starting to think it’s just being out several times in poor light.
Click to expand...
I have the A9-II which is better than the A9 but it’s still not up to the D750/D850, BUT it has to be pretty extreme for that to matter.
I also wonder how much changes in software aid/hinder things? I’m sure LR handles highlight recovery differently (even with some of my older files) to what it used to :thinking:
TCR4x4 said:
Topaz gigapixel completely solves this issue. I can crop an a9 image to 90% then blow it back up to 6000x4000 in gigapixel. You need to be careful with the settings, as it can turn the subject into a cartoon, but it really does work very well.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t get on with gigapixel tbh, didn’t seem to do any better than increasing resolution in photoshop from my experience, and not something I’d use other than a last resort. YMMV.
JohnMcL7 said:
I was going to ask about the AF on the 70-180mm as I've been toying with one but I'd read a couple of reviews that said the AF wasn't that fast, I have a new puppy and struggling with shots of him running towards the camera with the 28-200mm while the 100-400mm is a bit long.
Click to expand...
I’ve had no problem photographing our dog with the 70-180mm. I’ve not done any specific testing but it’s been the best for this out of all of my lenses including the 100-400mm GM. I would like to test it with people running though and see how well it tracks with eye AF.
 
trevorbray said:
View: https://youtu.be/1CDxKB9v0HE


After watching Gordons review I’ve changed my mind, and WANT an A1 to bolt it to...I need help..
Click to expand...
Honestly the A1 is a masterpiece and i dont see myself upgrading from it until global shutters are a thing,.

I may even upgrade my other A9 for another A1 at some point.

I have a a1 and a9 as i shoot sports and also portaiture
 
jonneymendoza said:
Honestly the A1 is a masterpiece and i dont see myself upgrading from it until global shutters are a thing,.

I may even upgrade my other A9 for another A1 at some point.

I have a a1 and a9 as i shoot sports and also portaiture
Click to expand...
Thanks mate. It’s deffo overkill for what I shoot. I’d really like an articulating screen as well. In all honesty most cameras are way better than me.
 
According to SAR the 70-200mm f2.8 GM2 won’t ship until 16th December, is it ‘usual’ for a lens to be announced 2 months before it starts shipping? Seems a long time to me :thinking:
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
According to SAR the 70-200mm f2.8 GM2 won’t ship until 16th December, is it ‘usual’ for a lens to be announced 2 months before it starts shipping? Seems a long time to me :thinking:
Click to expand...
Not at all it's the new trend. Nikon has been trickling in Z9 specs one line item at a time for best part of the year.
Canon didn't for like 6 months with R3.
Sony following suit, they just aren't as good at it yet.
 
snerkler said:
The Tamron doesn’t cope well with someone running here :eek:

View: https://youtu.be/SVgwkuZUWGQ
Click to expand...
My experience of the Tamron is pretty good but AF is definitely its shortfall. My 100-400 focuses a good deal quicker despite being two stops darker and that is taking images at 5fps quicker. The new Sony 70-200 will be my next lens
 
wookie6262 said:
My experience of the Tamron is pretty good but AF is definitely its shortfall. My 100-400 focuses a good deal quicker despite being two stops darker and that is taking images at 5fps quicker. The new Sony 70-200 will be my next lens
Click to expand...
Interesting, I’m going to test mine properly vs the 100-400mm, the Tamron has always been very snappy for me.

That being said, despite my initial thoughts and reservations about the size I can see myself ending up with the GM2 at some point.
 
snerkler said:
Interesting, I’m going to test mine properly vs the 100-400mm, the Tamron has always been very snappy for me.

That being said, despite my initial thoughts and reservations about the size I can see myself ending up with the GM2 at some point.
Click to expand...
It may be an unfair test and my view may be unfair too. The relative speed a dogs is moving towards me will be less out at 400mm, at least I think it will. My comments were when there is some light about. If I am in the woods then the 135mm GM is my choice. Might do some side by side tests myself now I have two A9s as my view was completely anecdotal and of course the extra 5 fps gives more chances of sharp shots in a sequence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top