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

[snerkler]

The bloggers point, and I can't remember who it was, was that in that instance and in his opinion the result was mainly achieved through processing beyond what he'd been willing to do.

I suppose we all have to make our own minds up and straying more into creating an image rather than capturing or enhancing one isn't a mortal sin but it is something that makes me a little wary of pictures of the lights seen on the news and taken in places they're not normally seen.

Or maybe they didn't know how to capture it properly The camera alone picks up more than the eye can see, in part due to the way our eyes work with light at night as I understand. But like a lot of photos, to get those so called magazine worthy shots some embellishment is needed in PP.

 

[woof woof]

Or maybe they didn't know how to capture it properly The camera alone picks up more than the eye can see, in part due to the way our eyes work with light at night as I understand. But like a lot of photos, to get those so called magazine worthy shots some embellishment is needed in PP.

As above we have to make our own minds up on how much processing is acceptable. I'm not against a lot of processing as it's all about preference and opinion and what suits the subject or creates the picture you want. The thing that does bother me is when it strays into misrepresentation, as in showing an image on the news and saying this is a picture of the lights taken at x place. The way I'm tending to see this is... Well no, it isn't really, it's a very heavily processed image and if looking by eye you'd probably say the light were a no show.

 

[woof woof]

Anyway.

James has a new vid...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEAoBmf5LRI


It's not really about buying a Leica and is more a series of questions and answers. These things which could be more interesting to people newer to this include questions about light, how you find a style and what aperture he uses most.

 

[woof woof]

Whilst out with the 50mm f1.1 I tried to get it to flare as this is one thing that cheaper lenses are sometimes criticised for but even though I tried to provoke it I only had one instance and even then it's not really as clearly defined as I'd hoped. I might have a go at enhancing it. Mostly it refused but it was mostly glare rather that strong direct sun.

Sandwich time.

Two last scenes.

Looking away from the sea.

Cliff, rocks, sea.

 

[woof woof]

Pav enthusing about the Sony 35mm f1.8.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNVO-a2hv4k

 

[snerkler]

Pav enthusing about the Sony 35mm f1.8.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNVO-a2hv4k

Performance wise it's a great lens, rendering wise it's nice enough but there's nothing particularly exciting about it imo. Overall I do like it though.

 

[Faldrax]

The bloggers point, and I can't remember who it was, was that in that instance and in his opinion the result was mainly achieved through processing beyond what he'd been willing to do.

I suppose we all have to make our own minds up and straying more into creating an image rather than capturing or enhancing one isn't a mortal sin but it is something that makes me a little wary of pictures of the lights seen on the news and taken in places they're not normally seen.

You could say the same of a whole bunch of photographs - Long Exposure Landscapes are the obvious ones, where the camera captures a 'composite' image which deliberately aims to use blurring of parts of the scene (clouds, water) to create an image which the eye could never see - but no-one decries such images as 'fake'.

 

[woof woof]

You could say the same of a whole bunch of photographs - Long Exposure Landscapes are the obvious ones, where the camera captures a 'composite' image which deliberately aims to use blurring of parts of the scene (clouds, water) to create an image which the eye could never see - but no-one decries such images as 'fake'.

I didn't use the word fake, I think misrepresentation could be more accurate.

People can do whatever they want and artistic interpretation and use of photographic technique is very often a good thing as long as we're honest about what we're doing. I do think there's a difference between that and presenting a heavily processed image having more in common with artificially generated AI image than a photograph and claiming it's the scene from last night. I think if we do that we do stray into something different and nearer to "fake." With a long exposure or a night sky picture we all know what's going on but less so if the news shows us a picture of the northern lights taken in the south of England which could have been subject to and a product of very heavy processing and nothing like what we'd have seen on the night.

 

[snerkler]

I didn't use the word fake, I think misrepresentation could be more accurate.

People can do whatever they want and artistic interpretation and use of photographic technique is very often a good thing as long as we're honest about what we're doing. I do think there's a difference between that and presenting a heavily processed image having more in common with artificially generated AI image than a photograph and claiming it's the scene from last night. I think if we do that we do stray into something different and nearer to "fake." With a long exposure or a night sky picture we all know what's going on but less so if the news shows us a picture of the northern lights taken in the south of England which could have been subject to and a product of very heavy processing and nothing like what we'd have seen on the night.

I have no problem with accentuating what’s there such as the northern lights or milky way, if it wasn’t for techniques like this we’d not have all those stunning photos of all the different galaxies etc. What I’m not a fan of is faking an image such as adding mist and sun rays, or replacing a bland sky with a dramatic storm or something. That being said on a handful of my motorsport images I have increased the motion blur so is that really any better? For us togs it’s not difficult for us to see which one has fake motion vs real motion, but to the untrained eye it’s not so easy. And then there’s the whole can of worms of smartphones etc adding fake background blur and shallow DOF

 

[ancient_mariner]

Performance wise it's a great lens, rendering wise it's nice enough but there's nothing particularly exciting about it imo. Overall I do like it though.

Just like the Zeiss 55, if you don't mind a bit of CA.

 

[LeeRatters]

I didn't use the word fake, I think misrepresentation could be more accurate.

People can do whatever they want and artistic interpretation and use of photographic technique is very often a good thing as long as we're honest about what we're doing. I do think there's a difference between that and presenting a heavily processed image having more in common with artificially generated AI image than a photograph and claiming it's the scene from last night. I think if we do that we do stray into something different and nearer to "fake." With a long exposure or a night sky picture we all know what's going on but less so if the news shows us a picture of the northern lights taken in the south of England which could have been subject to and a product of very heavy processing and nothing like what we'd have seen on the night.

I have no problem with accentuating what’s there such as the northern lights or milky way, if it wasn’t for techniques like this we’d not have all those stunning photos of all the different galaxies etc. What I’m not a fan of is faking an image such as adding mist and sun rays, or replacing a bland sky with a dramatic storm or something. That being said on a handful of my motorsport images I have increased the motion blur so is that really any better? For us togs it’s not difficult for us to see which one has fake motion vs real motion, but to the untrained eye it’s not so easy. And then there’s the whole can of worms of smartphones etc adding fake background blur and shallow DOF

There is always the case of "heavy processing" You only have to search Milky Way on Flickr or Instagram to see how much people slide the dehaze to the right

But naturally, the camera does pick up more than we can see regardless. Back when I shot Neowise, I couldn't see it until I looked on the rear LCD. I had to take test shots to get the right composition.

 

[woof woof]

There is always the case of "heavy processing" You only have to search Milky Way on Flickr or Instagram to see how much people slide the dehaze to the right

But naturally, the camera does pick up more than we can see regardless. Back when I shot Neowise, I couldn't see it until I looked on the rear LCD. I had to take test shots to get the right composition.

I think people are missing my point.

I think I/we know that a Milky Way shot is very likely the product of multiple exposures and stacking and enhancing and that milky water shots are a product of long exposures and yes a digital camera will pick up more than we see when used at very wide apertures and/or signal boosting and also when used for long exposures. Yup. Yup to all that.

My original comment and question was about recent northern lights images taken in places where the effect is rare and are they real or the result of heavy processing making something visible which couldn't be seen at the time. Perhaps expecting something recognisable as the northern light to be visible at the time the picture (as a starting point for the creation of he final image) is taken is too much ask but in this case and for this subject I'd want to see it rather than create it on the pc out of nothing I could see at the time.

If I ever do get to go on a cruise and if I'm lucky enough to see the lights I'll be taking a picture of something I can see and I'll very likely be enhancing it too but seeing it first will be what gets me to take the picture.

Just me

 

[imattersuk]

There is always the case of "heavy processing" You only have to search Milky Way on Flickr or Instagram to see how much people slide the dehaze to the right

But naturally, the camera does pick up more than we can see regardless. Back when I shot Neowise, I couldn't see it until I looked on the rear LCD. I had to take test shots to get the right composition.

Wish I had a dehaze slider after a night on the lash

 

[snerkler]

I think people are missing my point.

I think I/we know that a Milky Way shot is very likely the product of multiple exposures and stacking and enhancing and that milky water shots are a product of long exposures and yes a digital camera will pick up more than we see when used at very wide apertures and/or signal boosting and also when used for long exposures. Yup. Yup to all that.

My original comment and question was about recent northern lights images taken in places where the effect is rare and are they real or the result of heavy processing making something visible which couldn't be seen at the time. Perhaps expecting something recognisable as the northern light to be visible at the time the picture (as a starting point for the creation of he final image) is taken is too much ask but in this case and for this subject I'd want to see it rather than create it on the pc out of nothing I could see at the time.

Just me

Yep I fully understood where you're coming from I do understand that some people might be underwhelmed if they expect to see the lights like they've seen in some images, but I don't think that this is a fault of the photographer or that they shouldn't have done it

 

[woof woof]

Yep I fully understood where you're coming from I do understand that some people might be underwhelmed if they expect to see the lights like they've seen in some images, but I don't think that this is a fault of the photographer or that they shouldn't have done it

I don't think it's something I would do. If what I saw at the time was what might be a slight vaguely green glow I don't think I'd bother taking the picture other than as a record shot. I don't think I'd want to attempt to turn it into a recognisable as and much more interesting northern lights image.

 

[snerkler]

I don't think it's something I would do. If what I saw at the time was what might be a slight vaguely green glow I don't think I'd bother taking the picture other than as a record shot. I don't think I'd want to attempt to turn it into a recognisable as and much more interesting northern lights image.

Having looked at some before and after shots there’s not a lot of difference in terms of how much processing has been applied compared to many of the before and after shots I’ve seen, whether it be portraiture, sports etc.

I think the main difference is that the camera sees more than the eye can, but I I’m ok with that if it allows us to see the beauty that’s there that we’d otherwise not be able to appreciate

 

[LeeRatters]

I think people are missing my point.

I think I/we know that a Milky Way shot is very likely the product of multiple exposures and stacking and enhancing and that milky water shots are a product of long exposures and yes a digital camera will pick up more than we see when used at very wide apertures and/or signal boosting and also when used for long exposures. Yup. Yup to all that.

My original comment and question was about recent northern lights images taken in places where the effect is rare and are they real or the result of heavy processing making something visible which couldn't be seen at the time. Perhaps expecting something recognisable as the northern light to be visible at the time the picture (as a starting point for the creation of he final image) is taken is too much ask but in this case and for this subject I'd want to see it rather than create it on the pc out of nothing I could see at the time.

If I ever do get to go on a cruise and if I'm lucky enough to see the lights I'll be taking a picture of something I can see and I'll very likely be enhancing it too but seeing it first will be what gets me to take the picture.

Just me

I managed to capture an image of them last night. In a place where the effect is very rare! And they can be seen on the back of the camera in the jpeg preview. And no, I couldn't see them with my eyes.

As I said earlier, it was the same with Neowise.

I don't know what else to say.....

 

[snerkler]

I managed to capture an image of them last night. In a place where the effect is very rare! And they can be seen on the back of the camera in the jpeg preview. And no, I couldn't see them with my eyes.

As I said earlier, it was the same with Neowise.

I don't know what else to say.....

Jammy so and so

 

[Tysonator]

Did anyone capture the Northern Lights last night? We didn't get them in our area, too much cloud cover even if we did. Same story predicted tonight with cloud cover unfortunately.

I went out side unfortunately in my neck of the woods i am just a little to far south in East Anglia !

 

[LeeRatters]

Jammy so and so

Literally, 4 frames out of everything with something in them!


*** by Lee, on Flickr

 

[robj20]

All the money i had saved for a couple of new lenses i ended up blowing on a new bike. The Sony 20-70 G is definitely my number one choice at the minute.

 

[trevorbray]

I see Clifton Camera have the 20-70 in stock

 

[snerkler]

I see Clifton Camera have the 20-70 in stock

Yeah most places have had stock for a few days now, I'm not willing to pay £1400 for it though so will wait for prices to drop/offers/grey

 

[snerkler]

I'm starting to question how reliable this site is. Looking at the 24-70mm GM and 24-70mm GM2 the original looks better at the periphery (to my eyes) at f8 at 24mm and comparable at 70mm, and neither are anywhere near as good as the old AF-S Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G which was never regarded as the sharpest lens in the world

Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[trevorbray]

I'm starting to question how reliable this site is. Looking at the 24-70mm GM and 24-70mm GM2 the original looks better at the periphery (to my eyes) at f8 at 24mm and comparable at 70mm, and neither are anywhere near as good as the old AF-S Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G which was never regarded as the sharpest lens in the world

Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Just go to Dustin Abbot for the definitive review.

 

[snerkler]

Just go to Dustin Abbot for the definitive review.

I must admit I find him very dull It would be nice to have a reliable comparison tool though to directly compare one to the other.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm starting to question how reliable this site is. Looking at the 24-70mm GM and 24-70mm GM2 the original looks better at the periphery (to my eyes) at f8 at 24mm and comparable at 70mm, and neither are anywhere near as good as the old AF-S Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G which was never regarded as the sharpest lens in the world

Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

It may not help that he's using different camera bodies for the evaluation. But I agree about the GM I vs II - did they make the II smaller, and could that be a reason for a drop in quality?

 

[snerkler]

It may not help that he's using different camera bodies for the evaluation. But I agree about the GM I vs II - did they make the II smaller, and could that be a reason for a drop in quality?

I just thought all the reviews I'd read said the GM2 was a step up in image quality and sharpness. Maybe I'm mistaken If it is accurate then I'd say the GMs are disappointing if they're not as good as the 16 year old Nikon

GM2 top, Nikon AF-S bottom both 70mm f8 (I appreciate one is more enlarged)





But then you see scores like this (I appreciate the Nikon will lose out a bit with these scores due to the lower res body)

 

[gilbouk]

I just thought all the reviews I'd read said the GM2 was a step up in image quality and sharpness. Maybe I'm mistaken If it is accurate then I'd say the GMs are disappointing if they're not as good as the 16 year old Nikon

GM2 top, Nikon AF-S bottom both 70mm f8 (I appreciate one is more enlarged)
View attachment 382766




But then you see scores like this (I appreciate the Nikon will lose out a bit with these scores due to the lower res body)

View attachment 382767

I wonder how the sigma DG DN fairs against the Sonys. I wasn't as impressed with my Sigma 24- 70 compared with the Canon MKii. I understand why you'd feel disappointed if the latest isn't as good as the ancient Nikon 24-70mm

 

[snerkler]

I wonder how the sigma DG DN fairs against the Sonys. I wasn't as impressed with my Sigma 24- 70 compared with the Canon MKii. I understand why you'd feel disappointed if the latest isn't as good as the ancient Nikon 24-70mm

They're not lenses I'm pursuing but I was comparing other things then just got carried away However, it's not a question of being disappointed more a question of whether that site is reliable. If it is reliable then I'm staggered by the results and can't understand why the GMs get lauded so much. Of the lenses I've owned and compared the site does correlate with my own findings

I've only got one DG DN lens and that's the 85mm, but it's stellar.

Edit: on that site teh GM looks better except the periphery at 70mm f8 where the DG DN looks better.

 

[snerkler]

They're not lenses I'm pursuing but I was comparing other things then just got carried away However, it's not a question of being disappointed more a question of whether that site is reliable. If it is reliable then I'm staggered by the results and can't understand why the GMs get lauded so much. Of the lenses I've owned and compared the site does correlate with my own findings

I've only got one DG DN lens and that's the 85mm, but it's stellar.

Edit: on that site teh GM looks better except the periphery at 70mm f8 where the DG DN looks better.

Well looking at youtube ALL the videos show the GM2 being noticeably sharper in the corners than the competition, and I can see that it's much sharper in the corners than the above website shows so I think I've answered my own question Couple of screen grabs extreme corners. The Tamron looks extremely warm

 

[Raymond Lin]

The Sony GM mk1 was never that sharp a lens, it is significantly worse than the Canon EF mk2 L

I remember this from years ago.

So even if the GM II is sharper…has it even caught up with the old Canon? The original GM set the bar really low.

Ps I’m not a fan of this channel either but the images results were striking.

 

[ancient_mariner]

The Tamron looks extremely warm

Frm what I've seen Sony lenses are quite cold and everything else looks warm by comparison.

 

[woof woof]

Saw this on the rumor site. Has this been posted? I don't know so here it is possibly again...

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-fe-20-70mm-f-4-g-lens-review-36345

This is the bit that caught my eye...

"The f/4 aperture is no real obstacle in these days of high ISO cameras, where performance at mind-boggling values does not mean a huge drop in quality."

I suppose if thinner DoF isn't needed that's one less thing to worry about but there's still lower light shooting but of course 20-70mm f4 owners might just have other lenses available when wider than f4 really is needed to keep the shutter speed reasonable for the subject and conditions.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Frm what I've seen Sony lenses are quite cold and everything else looks warm by comparison.

Colour rendering from different manufacturers glass is definitely a curve ball - and over time some manufacturers glass changes in rendering as well (ie Fuji X series glass, the original 3 lenses are very different to later lenses).

I took the descision some time ago, to simplfy my workflow and beacsue I wanted consistency, and this meant using lenses from one supplier, I take my hat of to those people who manage to sucessfully mix and match lenses from camera manufacturer and a mixture of 3rd party lenses. Its not for me!

If I was @snerkler I would be more worried about colour rendering across my arsenal of lenses than cost v sharpness debates. Honestly if you stare at a print, do you ever say its not quite sharp enough in the top left corner, if you do then there must be something else wrong with the image as its not catching you attention in the way the photographer intended!

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm happy to mix & match lenses, but then I often change WB anyway for colour and quite a lot of my output is mono anyway.

For me, the biggest discontinuity comes changing between zoom and prime lenses, where the diff lens types offer very different rendering. I find that far more significant than a little warth or coolness.

 

[woof woof]

I'm happy to mix & match lenses, but then I often change WB anyway for colour and quite a lot of my output is mono anyway.

Yup.

For consistency across lenses maybe quality cine lenses are the way to go.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Yup.

For consistency across lenses maybe quality cine lenses are the way to go.

Perhaps.

I'm trying to put togther a zine of my canal shots. making the final selection is really hard because the lenses used (Sony G 24-105, Zeiss 55, Samyang 50 & 85 f1.4, Tamron 90 f2.8 macro, Sigma 12-24, minolta 70-210) all make very different pictures. They're great alone, but in the context of a set the differences are slightly jarring. If I do this again I'll just choose 1 or 2 lenses that render similarly like the Sammys.

FWIW The Sony and Sigma give a 'hard' rendering while the Sammys and Minolta give a soft rendering. The Tamron is in the middle.

 

[snerkler]

Frm what I've seen Sony lenses are quite cold and everything else looks warm by comparison.

From my experience Sony are more neutral/true to life.

Colour rendering from different manufacturers glass is definitely a curve ball - and over time some manufacturers glass changes in rendering as well (ie Fuji X series glass, the original 3 lenses are very different to later lenses).

I took the descision some time ago, to simplfy my workflow and beacsue I wanted consistency, and this meant using lenses from one supplier, I take my hat of to those people who manage to sucessfully mix and match lenses from camera manufacturer and a mixture of 3rd party lenses. Its not for me!

If I was @snerkler I would be more worried about colour rendering across my arsenal of lenses than cost v sharpness debates. Honestly if you stare at a print, do you ever say its not quite sharp enough in the top left corner, if you do then there must be something else wrong with the image as its not catching you attention in the way the photographer intended!

It's rare that I mix and match across a shoot so it's not really an issue and a certain series of shots will have consistency. Also, I shoot 99.9% of my shots in natural light so the colour of light changes all the time anyway

As for the sharpness, it was just a surprise for me to find it that's all, it's my day off today and just had too much time on my hands I don't get too caught up in it and find that most modern lenses are plenty sharp enough most of the time. For example, I think the 24-70mm f4 is just fine. Granted the corners aren't as good as other Sony lenses such as the 24-105mm but it's no a million miles away, and it's sharper (in my experience) than the Nikon 24-120mm f4 and even the 18-35mm G which was always regarded as very sharp 'back in the day'

 

[snerkler]

Perhaps.

I'm trying to put togther a zine of my canal shots. making the final selection is really hard because the lenses used (Sony G 24-105, Zeiss 55, Samyang 50 & 85 f1.4, Tamron 90 f2.8 macro, Sigma 12-24, minolta 70-210) all make very different pictures. They're great alone, but in the context of a set the differences are slightly jarring. If I do this again I'll just choose 1 or 2 lenses that render similarly like the Sammys.

FWIW The Sony and Sigma give a 'hard' rendering while the Sammys and Minolta give a soft rendering. The Tamron is in the middle.

I find it strange that some Sigmas are so clinical yet some are lovely an buttery such as the 85mm DG DN.