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

ancient_mariner said:
It's a different, rather hard rendering compared to the Sammy.
Click to expand...

The lens has been pretty widely praised for its bokeh at portrait distance, see the various reviews and blogs and the many available samples. A messy foliage scene is going to be a hard test and then there's light and contrast and all the rest so I think the only way to compare lenses is with the same or very similar subjects in the same or very similar settings and conditions. Even my very harsh rendering in some situations Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 can give smooth rendering with some scenes and conditions, and also the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 is 40mm not 35 or 50mm.
 
Last edited:
That's not a criticism, but it's just a different style lens.
 
ancient_mariner said:
That's not a criticism, but it's just a different style lens.
Click to expand...

I thought the issue was Sony 50mm f1.2 v Sony 50mm f1.4?

If that is the case my point was that IMO there's not a lot of difference between f1.2 and f1.4. My opinion is that it's mainly the difference in the size of specular highlights and any other differences and indeed possibly that one too will probably only be noticed if you compare f1.2 and f1.4 shots taken of the same scene before something changes.

These two Sony lenses don't AFAIK have identical optical builds so the look they'll give at their widest apertures or when both at f1.4 may be different again from one lens at f1.2 and then f1.4 and that needs thinking about. If it was me I'd go for the f1.4 just for the slightly smaller and lighter package but I can understand people going for the f1.2 if it's the better lens but the fact that it's f1.2 rather than f1.4 is something that I personally wouldn't even consider as IMO the difference from f1.2 to f1.4 is not worth worrying about. If it's a better rendering lens then that comes under the better lens heading for me but then I'd be back to wondering if I'd ever notice anything wrong with the rendering of the slightly smaller and lighter f1.4 if that's what I had.

As above, I think in Snerklers place I'd want to see more sample pictures from the f1.4 and then make my mind up.
 
Manny looks at MF v Sony A7RV...


I don't know if he's right but he says that the human eye has a DR of 20 stops. I've noticed that sometimes when shooting into the sun / glare my cameras capture detail which I couldn't see at the time by eye. This has definitely happened with my MFT cameras too so perhaps some of the human DR perception is at the other end of the scale, the shadow end? I don't know, it's just interesting.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Manny looks at MF v Sony A7RV...


I don't know if he's right but he says that the human eye has a DR of 20 stops. I've noticed that sometimes when shooting into the sun / glare my cameras capture detail which I couldn't see at the time by eye. This has definitely happened with my MFT cameras too so perhaps some of the human DR perception is at the other end of the scale, the shadow end? I don't know, it's just interesting.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there’s a reliable info as to what the dynamic range of the human eye is, I’ve seen reports ranging anywhere from 10-14 stops to 24 stops, but I’ve also seen it said that the eyes constantly adapt/adjust depending on where you look which is probably why information is so sketchy :thinking:

I’ve not had chance to watch the video yet to know what he says about it (y)
 
Hi All,


Bit of advice needed.

I currently have a Sony AR3a and bought a little while ago a Sony 70-200 f4, however I don’t really use it that much - doesn’t seem like there’s that much “zoom”.

I can currently get about £760 on trade in with the offers Sony are doing if I get a Sony 100-400 - just wondering if it’s worth the extra expense?

Might also just sell the lens on here - if so, any ideas on what I would get? It’s mint, boxed, all accessories.

Alternatively any other recommendations? I currently have the 20mm 1.8 Sony and the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 - would really like to do more portrait photography mainly - however I do like scenic shots and sometimes you just can’t get close enough.

Thanks for the help,

Paul
 
Well if you had the 100-400 it would get used a lot more than the 70-200
I have the same one and find the same thing but it is light for a mid-range zoom and seems very sharp.
With the option of jumping in APS-C and clear image zoom you would have most things covered with the 100-400 and two you have.
 
I have the Sigma 100-400mm which I think is a similar size and weight to the Sony one, for F-mount I also have the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 and the Tamron 150-600mm. The 100-400mm is the one I use the most of the three as it has a good bit more usable range than the 70-200mm but the size and weight isn't too much to carry around as it is the 150-600mm lens.
 
theghostie said:
Hi All,


Bit of advice needed.

I currently have a Sony AR3a and bought a little while ago a Sony 70-200 f4, however I don’t really use it that much - doesn’t seem like there’s that much “zoom”.

I can currently get about £760 on trade in with the offers Sony are doing if I get a Sony 100-400 - just wondering if it’s worth the extra expense?

Might also just sell the lens on here - if so, any ideas on what I would get? It’s mint, boxed, all accessories.

Alternatively any other recommendations? I currently have the 20mm 1.8 Sony and the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 - would really like to do more portrait photography mainly - however I do like scenic shots and sometimes you just can’t get close enough.

Thanks for the help,

Paul
Click to expand...
I think you mean reach rather than zoom. Reach makes things in the distance appear bigger, zoom is a factor between the shortest end vs the long end. For example the 100-400mm has a 4x zoom and the 200-600mm a 3x zoom but the 200-600mm will give you more reach and make distance things appear larger.

70-200mm lenses are fairly specific and aren’t lenses if you want lots of reach do things such as wildlife.

What are you wanting to shoot with it?
4wd said:
Well if you had the 100-400 it would get used a lot more than the 70-200
I have the same one and find the same thing but it is light for a mid-range zoom and seems very sharp.
With the option of jumping in APS-C and clear image zoom you would have most things covered with the 100-400 and two you have.
Click to expand...
Clear image zoom is jpeg only, but can give ‘ok’ results in certain situations. Using the APS-C mode is no different to cropping in post, and of course reduces the megapixels.
 
snerkler said:
I think you mean reach rather than zoom. Reach makes things in the distance appear bigger, zoom is a factor between the shortest end vs the long end. For example the 100-400mm has a 4x zoom and the 200-600mm a 3x zoom but the 200-600mm will give you more reach and make distance things appear larger.

70-200mm lenses are fairly specific and aren’t lenses if you want lots of reach do things such as wildlife.

What are you wanting to shoot with it?

Clear image zoom is jpeg only, but can give ‘ok’ results in certain situations. Using the APS-C mode is no different to cropping in post, and of course reduces the megapixels.
Click to expand...

The 70-200 was more about getting a decent lens for a good price - however it’s just not what I thought.

I went through the current Sigma offer and got the 150-600 and the 60-600 for a few days for free, so managed to have a good go of them. REALLY LIKED the 60-600, but just totally impractical as a lens I would want to use as an all purpose based on size and weight.

Thought the Sony was a good compromise - have also seen the Tamron 500mm but seems to be a bit more hit and miss on the reviews, however it’s a fraction of the price of the Sony etc

Part of the problem I think is I really like the Zeiss and the 20mm Sony - just want the “reach” but without the weight, size of the Sigma - happy to not spend the level of the Sony so long as I can get comparable performance.
 
theghostie said:
Part of the problem I think is I really like the Zeiss and the 20mm Sony - just want the “reach” but without the weight, size of the Sigma - happy to not spend the level of the Sony so long as I can get comparable performance.
Click to expand...
Every photographer in the world wants that ;) The only way you can get that is with a camera with much smaller sensor, but the you sacrifice image quality.
 
theghostie said:
The 70-200 was more about getting a decent lens for a good price - however it’s just not what I thought.

I went through the current Sigma offer and got the 150-600 and the 60-600 for a few days for free, so managed to have a good go of them. REALLY LIKED the 60-600, but just totally impractical as a lens I would want to use as an all purpose based on size and weight.

Thought the Sony was a good compromise - have also seen the Tamron 500mm but seems to be a bit more hit and miss on the reviews, however it’s a fraction of the price of the Sony etc

Part of the problem I think is I really like the Zeiss and the 20mm Sony - just want the “reach” but without the weight, size of the Sigma - happy to not spend the level of the Sony so long as I can get comparable performance.
Click to expand...
You have a great lens, personally I’d stick with it a bit longer as you can crop significantly with that great A7R3a sensor.

You’ve got the 20-200 range covered, that’s pretty comprehensive and unless you’re into BIF or fast moving sports from a significant distance I’d stick and add a Sigma 100-400 later if you still want more reach.
 
Anyone use any protective skins on the A1? If so, which? Also interested in thoughts of using the 1.4x TC with the 600mm F4 GM
 
James J said:
Anyone use any protective skins on the A1? If so, which? Also interested in thoughts of using the 1.4x TC with the 600mm F4 GM
Click to expand...
Alpha skins are good.

Pricey but nice.

LIFEGUARD Skins for Cameras and more USA Free Shipping

Sony Alpha Camera Skins by Life+Guard Design 3M Skins USA. Official store for LIFE GUARD Design camera skins. Premium Camera Skins. Premium 3M Material. Precision cut to exact Dimensions. Canon Nikon Fujifilm Panasonic Lumix Apple Red Digital
alphagvrd.com alphagvrd.com
 
Thanks, are these protective or just decorative? How on earth do they even attach? Looks like some vinyl thing lol
 
theghostie said:
@snerkler how do you find the 100-400 with the TC?
Click to expand...

James J said:
Anyone use any protective skins on the A1? If so, which? Also interested in thoughts of using the 1.4x TC with the 600mm F4 GM
Click to expand...
My experience using 1.4x TC on the 100-400mm GM is very positive. In terms of AF I don’t really see much difference. In terms of sharpness there’s very little drop off. Shooting at close distance the difference in sharpness is very small indeed, with subjects further away there’s some softening but not much at all imo.
 
woof woof said:
I thought the issue was Sony 50mm f1.2 v Sony 50mm f1.4?

If that is the case my point was that IMO there's not a lot of difference between f1.2 and f1.4. My opinion is that it's mainly the difference in the size of specular highlights and any other differences and indeed possibly that one too will probably only be noticed if you compare f1.2 and f1.4 shots taken of the same scene before something changes.

These two Sony lenses don't AFAIK have identical optical builds so the look they'll give at their widest apertures or when both at f1.4 may be different again from one lens at f1.2 and then f1.4 and that needs thinking about. If it was me I'd go for the f1.4 just for the slightly smaller and lighter package but I can understand people going for the f1.2 if it's the better lens but the fact that it's f1.2 rather than f1.4 is something that I personally wouldn't even consider as IMO the difference from f1.2 to f1.4 is not worth worrying about. If it's a better rendering lens then that comes under the better lens heading for me but then I'd be back to wondering if I'd ever notice anything wrong with the rendering of the slightly smaller and lighter f1.4 if that's what I had.

As above, I think in Snerklers place I'd want to see more sample pictures from the f1.4 and then make my mind up.
Click to expand...

Sorry not to come back sooner. Having seen some of the images produced using the 50 f1.2, I'd say they have a look to them that's from more than just the aperture, and quite different from the other Sony/Zeiss and your Voigtlander wider aperture lenses. If I didn't mind that much money being tied up in a single lens then I'd definitely have bought one at least a year ago. I don't think it's about the aperture, but rather a lens-specific characteristic and a 50 f1.4 isn't going to cut it.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Sorry not to come back sooner. Having seen some of the images produced using the 50 f1.2, I'd say they have a look to them that's from more than just the aperture, and quite different from the other Sony/Zeiss and your Voigtlander wider aperture lenses. If I didn't mind that much money being tied up in a single lens then I'd definitely have bought one at least a year ago. I don't think it's about the aperture, but rather a lens-specific characteristic and a 50 f1.4 isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen a few reviews saying the bokeh of the new f1.4 GM is nicer than the f1.2. Of course this is all subjective and could be a case of emperor’s new clothes.

There’s a new series of images on Flickr for the f1.4 and it does have the pop that I like, much better examples than the many reviews I’ve seen.
 
On the subject of "pop" I've been amazed by the Tamron 28-75 G2 in the "pop" department, something that people often attribute to Zeiss lenses, interestingly a few days ago I read that Tamron actually manufacturer the Zeiss lenses, seems they've used the same magic recipe on the G2.
 
imattersuk said:
On the subject of "pop" I've been amazed by the Tamron 28-75 G2 in the "pop" department, something that people often attribute to Zeiss lenses, interestingly a few days ago I read that Tamron actually manufacturer the Zeiss lenses, seems they've used the same magic recipe on the G2.
Click to expand...
It’s not a lens Ive looked into tbh as the focal range is not for me, but @NewBeetle ’s shots always look great with it.
 
snerkler said:
It’s not a lens Ive looked into tbh as the focal range is not for me, but @NewBeetle ’s shots always look great with it.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate, mine's the original version not the G2. I have zero complaints about the lens, just wish it went to 24mm but then it wouldn't be as small/light etc.
 
James J said:
Thanks, are these protective or just decorative? How on earth do they even attach? Looks like some vinyl thing lol
Click to expand...
Yeah they're protective, i used them on my Sony Riv and i was pleased with the quality.

They just stick on but don't leave any residue when you come to remove them.
 
I just got a Sony A7 IV and I'm looking to buy a battery charger for Sony NP-FZ100 batteries since none came with the box. Any suggestions or recommendations?
 
Last edited:
mav said:
Barn Owl
Barn Owl by robb d, on Flickr
Barn Owl Coming in to Land by robb d, on Flickr
Barn Owl Hunting by robb d, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Lovely shots there Mav, what camera and lens combo?

Kieran_89 said:
Yeah they're protective, i used them on my Sony Riv and i was pleased with the quality.

They just stick on but don't leave any residue when you come to remove them.
Click to expand...
Thanks Kieran, I'll take a look and see if I can get something to match the camouflage on the lens.
 
snerkler said:
Very nice indeed. Despite my efforts I'm yet to see an owl in the wild, much like I've never seen a kingfisher in the wild. They must see me coming a mile off :headbang: :LOL:
Click to expand...

Or perhaps you just don't see them? While in France a couple of years back I saw kingfishers several times but my wife not once despite being next to me. We have owls around here because I see them in the car headlights at night, but not in the day. :(
 
ancient_mariner said:
Or perhaps you just don't see them? While in France a couple of years back I saw kingfishers several times but my wife not once despite being next to me. We have owls around here because I see them in the car headlights at night, but not in the day. :(
Click to expand...
Of course very true, but I do tend to have a keen eye and do tend to spot birds that others don't :thinking:
 
Not sure how well this will show on here as TP tends to soften images but here goes.

100-400mm left vs 100-400mm with 1.4TC right

100-400mm vs 100-400mm 1.4tc by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

1:1 crops of the above images

100-400mm vs 100-400mm 1.4tc 100% crop by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

100-400mm enlarged 1.4x in gigapixel left vs 100-400mm with 1.4x TC right

Gigapixel vs 1.4x TC by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

100-400mm enlarged 1.4x in gigapixel left vs 100-400mm with 1.4x TC sharpened with topaz sharpen right

Gigapixel vs 1.4x TC Sharpened by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Screenshots can be downloaded here

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com www.dropbox.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top