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

Malfis said:
Could I ask a question?
How many people who shoot landscapes are using polarising filters nowadays?

After reading a few rave reviews I’ve ordered a Samyang 24-70mm f2.8.
It’s quite a large filter size (82mm) and I’m wondering if I should consider ordering a polariser.
Click to expand...

On the other hand..... I use a polariser quite a lot :p :)
 
Thanks Guys - it always used to be the case that polarising was one of the effects you couldn't reproduce in PP, and I used to use one regularly.
It does appear that this is still the case, so I will be ordering one today.


wookie6262 said:
I use one if shooting water or anything with a sheen. It can make a massive difference to some scenarios.
Click to expand...

snerkler said:
I use one very seldomly, I tend to use 16mm a lot and a polariser can have bad effects on the sky when using UWA.
Click to expand...

LeeRatters said:
On the other hand..... I use a polariser quite a lot :p :)
Click to expand...
 
Malfis said:
Thanks Guys - it always used to be the case that polarising was one of the effects you couldn't reproduce in PP, and I used to use one regularly.
It does appear that this is still the case, so I will be ordering one today.
Click to expand...
Polariser is one those filters where apparently almost any brand will do good enough
Lensrentals guy made a whole testing series on fillets for UV and polarisers

www.lensrentals.com

My Last Circular Polarizer Post

I posted an article about circular polarizing filters recently, letting you see some data I obtained for Lensrentals when they were reviewing which of the polarizing filters were among the best. I concluded that they all polarized light really well. I also said that none of the CPs I tested...
www.lensrentals.com
 
The most complained about tech...

www.electronicshub.org

The Most Complained About Tech Products in Every Country

Headaches with your tech? You're not alone! Uncover the most complained-about tech products in different countries. Find out what devices cause the most frustration & make informed buying decisions!
www.electronicshub.org www.electronicshub.org

Sony features in the most complained about cameras category but sadly there's no explanation.
 
Getting really itchy feet wanting to get my bike out again but there's still too much salt on the road, to make do I've edited a couple of old photos from last year.


A9_01503-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

A9_01515-Edit-2-2 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
DPR askes if this is the end of A mount.

www.dpreview.com

Sony Japan lists all A-mount lenses as 'discontinued' on its online shop

37 years after the A-mount was introduced by Minolta, Sony Japan has listed all lens models as 'discontinued' in its online store, where units were still being sold for older A-mount camera systems.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com

I've not used A mount but I expect that there'll be kit on the used market to keep fans going for a while.
 
snerkler said:
Getting really itchy feet wanting to get my bike out again but there's still too much salt on the road, to make do I've edited a couple of old photos from last year.


A9_01503-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

A9_01515-Edit-2-2 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Nice :cool:

I went over to the lock up last weekend to check on the Escort. First time I've opened the doors for 4 months!
 
LeeRatters said:
Nice :cool:

I went over to the lock up last weekend to check on the Escort. First time I've opened the doors for 4 months!
Click to expand...
Thanks. It's a pain isn't it, makes me want to live in Spain or somewhere ;)
 
Does anybody use the Sony A1 for football? I use my Nikon D5 setup for football and my Olympus E-M1X setup for birding/wildlife.

Just wondering if it is great for football too, then I could have one system for both genres :thinking: I've looked around the 'net but can't find much info.
 
wezza13 said:
Does anybody use the Sony A1 for football? I use my Nikon D5 setup for football and my Olympus E-M1X setup for birding/wildlife.

Just wondering if it is great for football too, then I could have one system for both genres :thinking: I've looked around the 'net but can't find much info.
Click to expand...
one of the folks here do use it for school sports I think. May be @dancook ?

Regardless plenty of examples online with sports, I am sure it can handle it pretty well. The eyeAF will be amazing for it I'm sure.
In fact Sony have been at both the summer olympics and Winter Olympics and now official partner for many news agencies who all cover sports to some extent.

Its certainly my "do-it-all" body! use it for wildlife, kids, landscapes, actions, motor sports etc.
 
Last edited:
Fuji Dave said:
Thank you Trevor, tomorrow should be fun, as going to try out the little FE 24mm GM as the Paris House is small so want and try to get them all in.
Click to expand...
Can’t wait Dave. I’m considering getting that lens (again)
 
wezza13 said:
Does anybody use the Sony A1 for football? I use my Nikon D5 setup for football and my Olympus E-M1X setup for birding/wildlife.

Just wondering if it is great for football too, then I could have one system for both genres :thinking: I've looked around the 'net but can't find much info.
Click to expand...
I use a Sony A9 and A9 ii for football. So similar to the A1 but not as good. I am very nearly ready to get an A1 but need a couple of more months to get it by the wife. They are both excellent and I can compare them to a D850 which has a similar focusing system to a D5 and an EM1 ii. The Sony sports cameras have lightning quick focus and allow you to compose as the action unfolds. Lots of options for different scenarios but they work brilliantly. The big issue is the cost of lenses as there isn't a backlog of previous versions. I was lucky to get a 400mm GM second hand and it is an amazing lens. The whole setup can be hand held easily, I know a I have forgot a monopod and shot a whole game without and wasn't struggling at the end. I', not much of a birder but the 200-600 is really good and works well on all my Sony bodys. I was Nikon/Olympus before Sony and I would never go back. You can get a very small and light setup with Sony for most scenarios and it blows Olympus away for image quality.
 
wezza13 said:
Does anybody use the Sony A1 for football? I use my Nikon D5 setup for football and my Olympus E-M1X setup for birding/wildlife.

Just wondering if it is great for football too, then I could have one system for both genres :thinking: I've looked around the 'net but can't find much info.
Click to expand...
The A1 is one of the best cameras around, both in image resolution and autofocus. You should find it better than the D5 and EM1-X
wookie6262 said:
You can get a very small and light setup with Sony for most scenarios and it blows Olympus away for image quality.
Click to expand...
A slight exaggeration I feel :p Printed on a 75cm canvas I can’t tell my Olympus prints apart from my FF (y)

I also did a blind test between the D850 and 24-70mm f2.8 and Olympus EM1 and 12-40mm f2.8 and the majority thought the Olympus was the FF shot :eek:
 
snerkler said:
The A1 is one of the best cameras around, both in image resolution and autofocus. You should find it better than the D5 and EM1-X

A slight exaggeration I feel :p Printed on a 75cm canvas I can’t tell my Olympus prints apart from my FF (y)

I also did a blind test between the D850 and 24-70mm f2.8 and Olympus EM1 and 12-40mm f2.8 and the majority thought the Olympus was the FF shot :eek:
Click to expand...
Not my experience but I shoot at high iso very often and really like shallow depth of field. I actually quite like my Olys but imo the sensors are a good way behind the Sonys. Not sure a canvas print is how I would judge image quality
 
wookie6262 said:
Not my experience but I shoot at high iso very often and really like shallow depth of field. I actually quite like my Olys but imo the sensors are a good way behind the Sonys. Not sure a canvas print is how I would judge image quality
Click to expand...
I give you that, high ISO the FF’s are much better. Shallow DOF is one of the main reasons I can’t ditch FF for m4/3. I do regret getting rid of the majority of my Olympus gear though.
 
snerkler said:
The A1 is one of the best cameras around, both in image resolution and autofocus. You should find it better than the D5 and EM1-X

A slight exaggeration I feel :p Printed on a 75cm canvas I can’t tell my Olympus prints apart from my FF (y)

I also did a blind test between the D850 and 24-70mm f2.8 and Olympus EM1 and 12-40mm f2.8 and the majority thought the Olympus was the FF shot :eek:
Click to expand...

You wouldn’t, canvas print quality sucks very badly even iPhone images will look the same as images taken on a high res full frame camera.

Do people still get images printed on canvas not seen that in years?
 
snerkler said:
I give you that, high ISO the FF’s are much better. Shallow DOF is one of the main reasons I can’t ditch FF for m4/3. I do regret getting rid of the majority of my Olympus gear though.
Click to expand...
I don't regret getting shot of mine. I liked the 40-150 but the Tamron 70-180 is similar in size and I can shoot with the A7R IV for similar crop. The wee primes were great on the Olys but Samyang and Sony F1.8s are very small and light too and do a great job. In good light the Olys are great and they are a very useful tool for when you need longer focal lengths but can't be bothered with the weight. The top cameras in their range feel brilliant in the hand and I can't believe the Pro Capture and the exposure being able to be shown as it builds up haven't been copied by other manufacturers. Olympus are brilliant at making extra value features that are really useful and innovative.
 
nandbytes said:
one of the folks here do use it for school sports I think. May be @dancook ?

Regardless plenty of examples online with sports, I am sure it can handle it pretty well. The eyeAF will be amazing for it I'm sure.
In fact Sony have been at both the summer olympics and Winter Olympics and now official partner for many news agencies who all cover sports to some extent.

Its certainly my "do-it-all" body! use it for wildlife, kids, landscapes, actions, motor sports etc.
Click to expand...

wookie6262 said:
I use a Sony A9 and A9 ii for football. So similar to the A1 but not as good. I am very nearly ready to get an A1 but need a couple of more months to get it by the wife. They are both excellent and I can compare them to a D850 which has a similar focusing system to a D5 and an EM1 ii. The Sony sports cameras have lightning quick focus and allow you to compose as the action unfolds. Lots of options for different scenarios but they work brilliantly. The big issue is the cost of lenses as there isn't a backlog of previous versions. I was lucky to get a 400mm GM second hand and it is an amazing lens. The whole setup can be hand held easily, I know a I have forgot a monopod and shot a whole game without and wasn't struggling at the end. I', not much of a birder but the 200-600 is really good and works well on all my Sony bodys. I was Nikon/Olympus before Sony and I would never go back. You can get a very small and light setup with Sony for most scenarios and it blows Olympus away for image quality.
Click to expand...

snerkler said:
The A1 is one of the best cameras around, both in image resolution and autofocus. You should find it better than the D5 and EM1-X
Click to expand...

dancook said:
As already mentioned A1 is amazing for sport - it's strange to see it questioned :D
Click to expand...

Thank you all for the feedback. The reason that I ask is that I've had a go on an A9 for football and the AF was amazing. However, I didn't think the image quality was as good as my D5. I shoot a lot of evening games at 12800 iso, 1000th and wide open at 2.8 on my Sigma 120-300 lens. I've tried a D850 too but wasn't happy with the IQ compared to my D5. It reminded me of the D500 when pixel peeping. It would be really handy to have the one system for footy and birding but, like Simon said, it's the cost of the lens. The 200-600 is fairly priced and I would have that for my wildlife but the lack of a 300mm 2.8 makes it a bit of a tricky decision. I suppose a 70-200 2.8 could be used.

Ideally, I'd rent one for a weekend and see how it performs but haven't found one for hire (understandable really). It's a lot of money to outlay without testing it first to see if I was happy with the images under the floodlights.

Thanks all.
 
wezza13 said:
Thank you all for the feedback. The reason that I ask is that I've had a go on an A9 for football and the AF was amazing. However, I didn't think the image quality was as good as my D5. I shoot a lot of evening games at 12800 iso, 1000th and wide open at 2.8 on my Sigma 120-300 lens. I've tried a D850 too but wasn't happy with the IQ compared to my D5. It reminded me of the D500 when pixel peeping. It would be really handy to have the one system for footy and birding but, like Simon said, it's the cost of the lens. The 200-600 is fairly priced and I would have that for my wildlife but the lack of a 300mm 2.8 makes it a bit of a tricky decision. I suppose a 70-200 2.8 could be used.

Ideally, I'd rent one for a weekend and see how it performs but haven't found one for hire (understandable really). It's a lot of money to outlay without testing it first to see if I was happy with the images under the floodlights.

Thanks all.
Click to expand...

Since you seem to be in Kent, I wouldn't mind meeting up for you to try out my A1+200-600.
Of course you will need to choose/sponsor the place for us to go and let me use one of your cameras while you use mine.
Bring your own SD cards too so you can take the pictures home ;)

While pixel peeping you have to remember D5 has less pixels hence will seem like it has less noise. If you downsize images to 20mp of all bodies they will seems similar.

Here's some studio comparisons from dpreview of the bodies mentioned. While the highres bodies do show more noise they also show more details than D5 where D5 has especially turned things to mush. So you can always noise reduce it in post to get nearly equivalent results to D5. In fact I prefer others to D5 since NR tools like Topaz will do an amazing job of keeping those details and reducing noise better than D5 could do anyway.


Screenshot 2022-02-14 at 08.27.56.jpg

Screenshot 2022-02-14 at 08.28.12.jpg

Screenshot 2022-02-14 at 08.28.54.jpg
 
wezza13 said:
Thank you all for the feedback. The reason that I ask is that I've had a go on an A9 for football and the AF was amazing. However, I didn't think the image quality was as good as my D5. I shoot a lot of evening games at 12800 iso, 1000th and wide open at 2.8 on my Sigma 120-300 lens. I've tried a D850 too but wasn't happy with the IQ compared to my D5. It reminded me of the D500 when pixel peeping. It would be really handy to have the one system for footy and birding but, like Simon said, it's the cost of the lens. The 200-600 is fairly priced and I would have that for my wildlife but the lack of a 300mm 2.8 makes it a bit of a tricky decision. I suppose a 70-200 2.8 could be used.

Ideally, I'd rent one for a weekend and see how it performs but haven't found one for hire (understandable really). It's a lot of money to outlay without testing it first to see if I was happy with the images under the floodlights.

Thanks all.
Click to expand...
IQ of the A9, A9-II and A1 should all be better (in theory) than the D5 in terms of resolution. Noise handling of the A1 should be better too. From my experience the A9-II isn’t as bad as the examples given above, and on par with the D850 (with the D850 downsampled) so I’m not sure whey they look so bad in the examples above :thinking:

What you might find is that you get better images with the D5 due to familiarity and knowing how to use it and process the files to their best potential. Also, lenses make a huge difference of course. I do prefer Nikon colours, although using the Color fidelity profiles in Lightroom for my Sonys has made this difference negligible.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
IQ of the A9, A9-II and A1 should all be better (in theory) than the D5 in terms of resolution. Noise handling of the A1 should be better too. From my experience the A9-II isn’t as bad as the examples given above, and on par with the D850 (with the D850 downsampled) so I’m not sure whey they look so bad in the examples above :thinking:
Click to expand...
Just looked and the above was in the 'good light' setting, whereas I always view in the low light setting. The A9-II look comparatively better in the low light setting imo.

The D5 does appear to have less noise overall, even when all downsampled, however it also looks "mushier" to my eyes so I'd imagine you can't extract as much detail. The A1 and D850 look to have much better detail at the pixel level, as you would expect.


Screenshot 2022-02-14 at 09.32.20 by TDG-77, on Flickr

Screenshot 2022-02-14 at 09.33.07 by TDG-77, on Flickr

Screenshot 2022-02-14 at 09.33.39 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I'm using 100-400 on the A1, so when it's a late winter afternoon with no flood lights the ISO creeps up...

I batch my high ISO files with DXO PureRaw (amazing noise reduction as found in DXO Photolab, faster than Topaz Denoise) - they come out looking great.

though I appreciate scenarios where you cannot add this to your workflow.

ISO 12,800 + PureRaw

12800_theatre.jpg

ISO 6400 + PureRaw

ISO6400.jpg

ISO 12,800 + PureRaw

ISO12800.jpg

ISO 12,800 + GOOD ~50% CROP + PureRaw

ISO12800_cropped.jpg
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
I'm using 100-400 on the A1, so when it's a late winter afternoon with no flood lights the ISO creeps up...

I batch my high ISO files with DXO PureRaw (amazing noise reduction as found in DXO Photolab, faster than Topaz Denoise) - they come out looking great.

though I appreciate scenarios where you cannot add this to your workflow.

ISO 12,800 + PureRaw

View attachment 344130

ISO 6400 + PureRaw

View attachment 344131

ISO 12,800 + PureRaw

View attachment 344132

ISO 12,800 + GOOD ~50% CROP + PureRaw

View attachment 344133
Click to expand...


12,800 on the Sony is really great, on the A7 III it is actually beautiful.
 
wookie6262 said:
I can't fault the A9 and A9 ii at iso 6400/12800. I shoot in jpeg and the in camera noise reduction works really well. For sport they get the job done.
Click to expand...
Do you never shoot raw? Do you do anything with the Sony colours or leave them as they are?
 
snerkler said:
Do you never shoot raw? Do you do anything with the Sony colours or leave them as they are?
Click to expand...
I shoot Raw when I don't have to send from pitch side. Try to get the colours right in camera using custom wb with floodlights etc. I'll play with colours with RAW files and like DXO for noise
 
Two at the moment from yesterday The Monday Boys jazz, A7 III + FE24mm f1.4 GM.

Jazz Afternoon by Rohan, on Flickr

A7C + SF75mm f1.8 Samyang, made a mistake and left this one on.

The Violin Man by Rohan, on Flickr
 
nandbytes said:
Since you seem to be in Kent, I wouldn't mind meeting up for you to try out my A1+200-600.
Of course you will need to choose/sponsor the place for us to go and let me use one of your cameras while you use mine.
Bring your own SD cards too so you can take the pictures home ;)

While pixel peeping you have to remember D5 has less pixels hence will seem like it has less noise. If you downsize images to 20mp of all bodies they will seems similar.

Here's some studio comparisons from dpreview of the bodies mentioned. While the highres bodies do show more noise they also show more details than D5 where D5 has especially turned things to mush. So you can always noise reduce it in post to get nearly equivalent results to D5. In fact I prefer others to D5 since NR tools like Topaz will do an amazing job of keeping those details and reducing noise better than D5 could do anyway.


View attachment 344094

View attachment 344095

View attachment 344096
Click to expand...

Hi Anand, thank you for the offer, I just might have to take you up on it. Whereabouts are you? In an ideal world, I'd like to test it on my regular footy but can meet somewhere closer if it's an issue. It'd more or less be on a Saturday afternoon. Failing that, we could do a bit of bird photography? Let me know via PM and we'll arrange something (y)
 
dancook said:
I'm using 100-400 on the A1, so when it's a late winter afternoon with no flood lights the ISO creeps up...

I batch my high ISO files with DXO PureRaw (amazing noise reduction as found in DXO Photolab, faster than Topaz Denoise) - they come out looking great.

though I appreciate scenarios where you cannot add this to your workflow.

ISO 12,800 + PureRaw

View attachment 344130

ISO 6400 + PureRaw

View attachment 344131

ISO 12,800 + PureRaw

View attachment 344132

ISO 12,800 + GOOD ~50% CROP + PureRaw

View attachment 344133
Click to expand...
The IQ on those looks pretty great tbh. I downloaded DxO PureRaw a couple of weeks ago and am currently trialling it.

Is this the one you're using? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-SEL100400GM-100-400-F4-5-5-6-Telephoto/dp/B071RFR318?th=1

I'd need 2.8 for evening games as the floodlights are very poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top