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

gman said:
I've not bought new anything yet and I'm going to wait for the 24-105mm sale to finalise first. I've got an awful lot going on just now so need some time to really get into the detail of it all.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I missed it but is there a specific reason you’re moving to MF?
 
woof woof said:
You only live once? :D
Click to expand...
Very true and I’m the first to say I’d you want something then just go for it. I was just curious what the lure is (y)
 
snerkler said:
Very true and I’m the first to say I’d you want something then just go for it. I was just curious what the lure is (y)
Click to expand...

I'm sure he'll be along to answer (and tempt us) soon :D

As I keep saying, I think the Hasselblad does look lovely, as a thing.

Other than that... I really want to be able to go out with a camera if only for an hour :D
 
woof woof said:
I'm sure he'll be along to answer (and tempt us) soon :D

As I keep saying, I think the Hasselblad does look lovely, as a thing.

Other than that... I really want to be able to go out with a camera if only for an hour :D
Click to expand...
The HB 1Dx does look good.
 
snerkler said:
Sorry if I missed it but is there a specific reason you’re moving to MF?
Click to expand...

I think it was my new phone that put the final nail in the coffin with the Sony gear. The A9 really was a great camera, but if I'm being honest with myself I was never using its full potential enough of the time. My phone is always on me and because the photos are only going on social media then the quality is more than enough, so I never had the need to reach for the Sony gear.

So where does Medium Format come in to all this? My photography interests have shifted to landscape and big stitches and I didn't think the A9 was the right tool for this, whereas MF should be perfect. Also, because this type of photography planned rather than spur-of-the-moment family stuff, then I don't need to worry about having the camera to hand all the time. Finally, when I look at the family photos that I have taken with the A9, printed and put on the wall, none of them are fast action scenes so the MF would have been fine.

My hesitation is making sure that I'm not looking at amazing MF photos and thinking it's just the camera that is achieving this and overlooking the skill of the photographer.
 
gman said:
I think it was my new phone that put the final nail in the coffin with the Sony gear. The A9 really was a great camera, but if I'm being honest with myself I was never using its full potential enough of the time. My phone is always on me and because the photos are only going on social media then the quality is more than enough, so I never had the need to reach for the Sony gear.

So where does Medium Format come in to all this? My photography interests have shifted to landscape and big stitches and I didn't think the A9 was the right tool for this, whereas MF should be perfect. Also, because this type of photography planned rather than spur-of-the-moment family stuff, then I don't need to worry about having the camera to hand all the time. Finally, when I look at the family photos that I have taken with the A9, printed and put on the wall, none of them are fast action scenes so the MF would have been fine.

My hesitation is making sure that I'm not looking at amazing MF photos and thinking it's just the camera that is achieving this and overlooking the skill of the photographer.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I’ve not really gone into it a lot but I’m not so sure I can see much of a difference in landscape shots between MF and a high res FF tbh, maybe if I shot with both I’d see it more.

Where I tend to see it more is portrait type shots with the drop off and more depth/3D, they do have a certain ‘character’ to them.
 
gman said:
I think it was my new phone that put the final nail in the coffin with the Sony gear. The A9 really was a great camera, but if I'm being honest with myself I was never using its full potential enough of the time. My phone is always on me and because the photos are only going on social media then the quality is more than enough, so I never had the need to reach for the Sony gear.

So where does Medium Format come in to all this? My photography interests have shifted to landscape and big stitches and I didn't think the A9 was the right tool for this, whereas MF should be perfect. Also, because this type of photography planned rather than spur-of-the-moment family stuff, then I don't need to worry about having the camera to hand all the time. Finally, when I look at the family photos that I have taken with the A9, printed and put on the wall, none of them are fast action scenes so the MF would have been fine.

My hesitation is making sure that I'm not looking at amazing MF photos and thinking it's just the camera that is achieving this and overlooking the skill of the photographer.
Click to expand...
Lighting plays a big part on portraits too, if you get the combo right then MF is magical. I’m a big fan of Rotolight, it has its critics but it’s worth joining the Facebook group to see what’s possible using them.
 
gman said:
My hesitation is making sure that I'm not looking at amazing MF photos and thinking it's just the camera that is achieving this and overlooking the skill of the photographer.
Click to expand...

One thing I do like is having a nice file. My creaking old A7 is the best camera I've ever owned and the files are better than those from any other camera I've owned and I do get pleasure from that. I can imagine looking at an MF file and loving the luxury of it even if as a picture it's no better than I'd take with my TZ100.
 
snerkler said:
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I’ve not really gone into it a lot but I’m not so sure I can see much of a difference in landscape shots between MF and a high res FF tbh, maybe if I shot with both I’d see it more.

Where I tend to see it more is portrait type shots with the drop off and more depth/3D, they do have a certain ‘character’ to them.
Click to expand...

I've seen some great landscape shots taken with the Nikon D850 that I did think could be MF, but I think that there is definitely something about MF that can be 'seen', not that it necessarily guarantees a good shot.

There's also the amount of flexibility with editing as well, and of course that desire to simply try something different. I think for the photography I want to do, MF will offer me the most and it'll be down to me to lessen how to master it.
 
imattersuk said:
Lighting plays a big part on portraits too, if you get the combo right then MF is magical. I’m a big fan of Rotolight, it has its critics but it’s worth joining the Facebook group to see what’s possible using them.
Click to expand...

I used to do some home studio stuff what feels like a lifetime ago! I had Lencarta strobes, but space for a proper studio setup was always the restriction. I do prefer natural light, especially the golden hour (who doesn't lol) but I'll have a look at that Rotolight thanks
 
woof woof said:
One thing I do like is having a nice file. My creaking old A7 is the best camera I've ever owned and the files are better than those from any other camera I've owned and I do get pleasure from that. I can imagine looking at an MF file and loving the luxury of it even if as a picture it's no better than I'd take with my TZ100.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, I always loved the images from my Canon 5D classic, they had that film like look.
 
woof woof said:
One thing I do like is having a nice file. My creaking old A7 is the best camera I've ever owned and the files are better than those from any other camera I've owned and I do get pleasure from that. I can imagine looking at an MF file and loving the luxury of it even if as a picture it's no better than I'd take with my TZ100.
Click to expand...

The camera should make no difference to lighting, composition etc, but it can make the difference between an ok image and a wow shot for rendering and sense of depth and detail.
 
gman said:
There's also the amount of flexibility with editing as well, and of course that desire to simply try something different. I think for the photography I want to do, MF will offer me the most and it'll be down to me to lessen how to master it.
Click to expand...
Always good to try new stuff. I do fancy trying MF myself purely out of curiosity but it's just not feasible for me.
 
gman said:
I know what you mean, I always loved the images from my Canon 5D classic, they had that film like look.
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree with you there :D

At the time the 5D was the best camera I'd ever had but it had issues, sensor contamination and noise when lifting the shadows possibly being a couple of he biggest. These days I look back at that camera with very little affection and for years now I've seen digital as being superior to anything I ever got from film.
 
oh er...

Sony will soon announce a new FE 20-70mm F4 G | sonyalpharumors

Sony is highly likely going to announce a new SEL2070G (FE 20-70mm F4 G) lens relatively soon. This might be announced in January/February! via Digicameinfo
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

At first I thought that must be a type and it must be a 24-70mm f4 but it does appear to be 20-70mm.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Gotta disagree with you there :D

At the time the 5D was the best camera I'd ever had but it had issues, sensor contamination and noise when lifting the shadows possibly being a couple of he biggest. These days I look back at that camera with very little affection and for years now I've seen digital as being superior to anything I ever got from film.
Click to expand...

I never seemed to experience these problems, although it was early days for me so I probably didn't do much editing on them.
 
I think it's been discussed before but does anyone know what the DR difference is on the A9ii between using electronic shutter and mechanical shutter is please?
 
gman said:
I never seemed to experience these problems, although it was early days for me so I probably didn't do much editing on them.
Click to expand...

The 5D sensor contamination issue was well known at the time and Canon's were at that time pretty bad for shadow recovery.

Each to their own but I never understand the "film look" comment with older digital cameras as to me they just never gave anything like the look I got from film.
 
Anyway... for various reasons I now have a new smartphone. It's a Samsung (came out 2021) and it has three lenses on the back. I used it to take a couple of pictures on Tuesday leaving the camera to select Mrs WW's face and focus but despite the focus box appearing on her face on my pc I could easily see that they were both out of focus. I tried again at home and I could see the phone focus changing again with the box on her face and it did acquire focus but the results are poor when viewed on my pc and they look like heavy noise reduction has been applied with a smoothed wax like effect on skin. Today I tried again this time shooting the scene from the top floor of a car park in town and I made a point of jabbing at the screen to try and make sure that it focused on something. The two pictures I took look sort of ok on the phone screen and I suppose as whole pictures on my pc but when I look closer they're just a horrible smeary mess.

Good luck to people who use phones to take pictures with but after giving this a try and seeing very poor results, it's rubbish, I don't think I'll be bothering. I'd rather use any camera I have :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The 5D sensor contamination issue was well known at the time and Canon's were at that time pretty bad for shadow recovery.

Each to their own but I never understand the "film look" comment with older digital cameras as to me they just never gave anything like the look I got from film.
Click to expand...
I can understand it.

Nikon D700 files had a film vibe to them.
 
f/2.8 said:
I can understand it.

Nikon D700 files had a film vibe to them.
Click to expand...

Feel like posting an example and pointing out the similarities because I just don't see it. Even with older cameras I don't but if it's there surely you have to specify the film you're thinking of and this will have to ignore any lens influence.

If a similarity to any stated film is there we should be able to make a reasonable attempt to describe it.

This made me remember my first digital camera, Fuji S602 Pro Zoom. I printed out some picture for my then GF and the first thing she said was "These don't look like photographs" and she was right, they were better. She was comparing them to the pictures I got back taken with my Nikon SLR.
 
Last edited:
Went out for the first time in ages to do a proper landscape, unfortunately the light wasn't my my friend but got these to show for my efforts. Not sure which I prefer :thinking: They're pretty similar :LOL:


A9_07241 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A9_07247 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Looking at the clouds, their positions and the light on them there isn't much in it but I prefer the first.

One thing which I find distracting in number two (that's apt...) is the bright white splodge in the bottom left which isn't in the frame in the first. So, number one is the winner for me but clone out the dropping in number two and that would do nicely :D

Well taken :D
 
snerkler said:
Went out for the first time in ages to do a proper landscape, unfortunately the light wasn't my my friend but got these to show for my efforts. Not sure which I prefer :thinking: They're pretty similar :LOL:


A9_07241 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A9_07247 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Light looks better than what I usually get! :ROFLMAO:

I do agree with Alan though RE the second image.
 
snerkler said:
Went out for the first time in ages to do a proper landscape, unfortunately the light wasn't my my friend but got these to show for my efforts. Not sure which I prefer :thinking: They're pretty similar :LOL:
Click to expand...
My preference is for the second - as you say they're pretty similar, but the immediate foreground is nicer in the second - the farming in the first gives quite a dark bottom edge.

I do agree regarding the bright patch on the rock - though it look like you could crop a touch off the left hand edge to just exclude it, without making a big difference to the rest of the image.
 
woof woof said:
Looking at the clouds, their positions and the light on them there isn't much in it but I prefer the first.

One thing which I find distracting in number two (that's apt...) is the bright white splodge in the bottom left which isn't in the frame in the first. So, number one is the winner for me but clone out the dropping in number two and that would do nicely :D

Well taken :D
Click to expand...

LeeRatters said:
Light looks better than what I usually get! :ROFLMAO:

I do agree with Alan though RE the second image.
Click to expand...

Faldrax said:
My preference is for the second - as you say they're pretty similar, but the immediate foreground is nicer in the second - the farming in the first gives quite a dark bottom edge.

I do agree regarding the bright patch on the rock - though it look like you could crop a touch off the left hand edge to just exclude it, without making a big difference to the rest of the image.
Click to expand...
Thanks guys. I didn't even see the splodge, it's now vanished ;)
 
f/2.8 said:
I can understand it.

Nikon D700 files had a film vibe to them.
Click to expand...

Aye, I remember that as well. I'm not sure what it was that could give the files this look but it was definitely there.
 
gman said:
Aye, I remember that as well. I'm not sure what it was that could give the files this look but it was definitely there.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen it said about certain cameras having more of a film look, and I even think the original X100 does, but I can’t for one second think why, other than maybe the way software processes specific cameras. AFAIK the D700, X100 etc don’t have any particular difference in sensor design that would explain it.
 
gman said:
Aye, I remember that as well. I'm not sure what it was that could give the files this look but it was definitely there.
Click to expand...

Possibly visible grain and a lack of colour accuracy :D

snerkler said:
I’ve seen it said about certain cameras having more of a film look, and I even think the original X100 does, but I can’t for one second think why, other than maybe the way software processes specific cameras. AFAIK the D700, X100 etc don’t have any particular difference in sensor design that would explain it.
Click to expand...

I think we're in the same territory as The Leica Look here but I don't know quite how anyone can generalise a film look as surely there isn't one film look as the look can vary quite a bit. Being very general about the films I used I'd say grain and a lack of colour accuracy were the themes I'd spot most easily. Film grain can I suppose be hard to replicate with digital but digital colour accuracy should be relatively easy to skew to give a more film like look.

Two of my favourite 5D shots and I see nothing film like in them. If I did have the same shots taken with film I'm sure I'd be able to tell them apart.

Mother and child.

4xYowqp.jpg


nbB7Efy.jpg


Anyway... Onwards.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
oh er...

Sony will soon announce a new FE 20-70mm F4 G | sonyalpharumors

Sony is highly likely going to announce a new SEL2070G (FE 20-70mm F4 G) lens relatively soon. This might be announced in January/February! via Digicameinfo
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

At first I thought that must be a type and it must be a 24-70mm f4 but it does appear to be 20-70mm.
Click to expand...
That sounds great. Every time I think I'm happy with a choice they bring something else out.
Tamron 20-40 has the speed, this Sony has better range.
 
woof woof said:
oh er...

Sony will soon announce a new FE 20-70mm F4 G | sonyalpharumors

Sony is highly likely going to announce a new SEL2070G (FE 20-70mm F4 G) lens relatively soon. This might be announced in January/February! via Digicameinfo
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

At first I thought that must be a type and it must be a 24-70mm f4 but it does appear to be 20-70mm.
Click to expand...

That's given you pause for thought it hasn't it Rob?

Best hang on until we know the cost, size and weight and how good it is :D
 
LeeRatters said:
Digital and Film ;)

Same morning, virtually the same time in almost the same spot ;)

*** [Explored] by Lee, on Flickr

*** by Lee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Damn it, I keep trying to convince myself that digital images are just as nice as film but they’re just not :headbang:

Nice shots btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top