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

Brazo said:
So A7C on route, lenses still being deliberated on. Thanks to all for their help so far. Hopefully last question!

What are my off camera flash options?

I’d like one flash gun and a way to trigger that off camera but also need to trigger up to four studio lights they have a 3.5mm Jack. I used to use pocket wizards to trigger them with my Nikon D850.
Click to expand...
I use these


 
Faldrax said:
Godox is generally the way to go.

The V860iii or V1 is probably the best they have, if you need all the bells and whistles.
Both use the same Li-ion battery to give faster recharge and more shots than a set of 4 AA's.

Trigger wise, you have a few options.
Start with a Godox trigger (the flash has a receiver built in) - X Pro / X Pro ii / XT2 depending on preferences.
If you want to keep your pocket wizards then simply buy a Godox Nikon fit receiver - and plug the Pocket Wizard transmitter into that (the Godox Sony fit trigger will happily talk to a Godox Nikon fit receiver, even allowing TTL and HSS if applicable).
Actually, if you are going down this route, and have a decent Nikon fit flashgun, then you don't need to buy the Godox Flash - you could use this in a Godox Nikon fit receiver if you wished.
You could also ditch the pocket wizards, and get a set of Godox receivers - they have a sync port so can be connected to your studio lights via 3.5mm jack.
Click to expand...
If I were to buy a Godox V860iii and one Godox X1R-S I would be able to fire the flash off camera?

If I bought two Godox X1R-S's I would be able to fire one studio light? Three Godox X1R-S's and I could fire two studio lights and so on?

TIA!
 
 
Or indeed one Godix flash, one Godox controller and two Godox X1R-S's to fire two studio lights.. Hope i'm getting it!
 
Brazo said:
Thankyou i'm guessing that controller is a great option too but I could also use one Godox X1R-S ontop the camera?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean, both of these fit on top of the camera?
 
Brazo said:
Or indeed one Godix flash, one Godox controller and two Godox X1R-S's to fire two studio lights.. Hope i'm getting it!
Click to expand...
If you buy the right flashes you don't need the X1Rs's as the flashes have their own receivers.
 
snerkler said:
I'm not sure what you mean, both of these fit on top of the camera?
Click to expand...
So I could use either the controller which you linked to, or the Godox X1R on top of the camera to fire the flash.

I'm minded to get exactly what you linked to but that will only cover my ocf needs and not my studio strobes hence the Godox X1R's for the studio lights?
 
snerkler said:
I'm happy to be proven wrong and would love to see examples, but from my experimentation a lot of it's down to the aperture, some of it is lens characteristics (for example I think Smayang have more of it than most lenses) and some of it lighting. I'm yet to see an f2.8 image have the same level of pop as f1.8 or wider, but as I said I'm happy to be proven wrong and it would be interesting (y)
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure exactly what you're after, just stuck this on my spare flickr account, it's got a 3D / pop characteristic at f/5.6 zoomed halfway at 49mm, many photos have and I think processing plays a large part also.

_A740227 by FusionX Photo, on Flickr
 
imattersuk said:
I'm not really sure exactly what you're after, just stuck this on my spare flickr account, it's got a 3D / pop characteristic at f/5.6 zoomed halfway at 49mm, many photos have and I think processing plays a large part also.

_A740227 by FusionX Photo, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Nice photo, but we must be talking about different things here as it's not got any of the look I'm referring to (y)
 
Bought some new sunglasses a while back but not worn them until today, they’ve got some new fangled polarising and my god the clarity they give is insane, it’s like having super hero vision. Shame I’ve never found a lens polariser like this, maybe I need to fit the sunglasses to my lenses :lol:
 
imattersuk said:
That's fighting talk, dare you to go on their threads and say that :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

It's not fighting talk, it's more like talk from someone who wasn't really trying :D I could post about a million MFT shots with shallower dof.

You don't really need pictures to prove this and MFT at f1.4 or f1.8 can't match the shallowness you get from FF at those apertures but you can still get it to a degree, you just need to do the sums and do the things that'd make shallow DoF possible with FF at f2.8-f3.6.
 
Last edited:
So the a9iii is now rumoured not to come out until the end of the year/early next year.

The empire strikes back: Here are the four new E-mount cameras Sony will announce within the next 6 months! | sonyalpharumors

https://youtu.be/SoMRNq2NgqM With relatively high confidence I can give you a rough roadmap of the next four camera announcements: Sony High End APS-C E-mount camera on July 12 New Sony A7cII: Announcement timeframe September/November New High Resolution Sony camera: Announcement timeframe...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
 
snerkler said:
So the a9iii is now rumoured not to come out until the end of the year/early next year.

The empire strikes back: Here are the four new E-mount cameras Sony will announce within the next 6 months! | sonyalpharumors

https://youtu.be/SoMRNq2NgqM With relatively high confidence I can give you a rough roadmap of the next four camera announcements: Sony High End APS-C E-mount camera on July 12 New Sony A7cII: Announcement timeframe September/November New High Resolution Sony camera: Announcement timeframe...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
Click to expand...
Plenty of time to save up and think of 1 million excuses to ditch the A1 then :ROFLMAO:
 
woof woof said:
It's not fighting talk, it's more like talk from someone who wasn't really trying :D I could post about a million MFT shots with shallower dof.

You don't really need pictures to prove this and MFT at f1.4 or f1.8 can't match the shallowness you get from FF at those apertures but you can still get it to a degree, you just need to do the sums and do the things that'd make shallow DoF possible with FF at f2.8-f3.6.
Click to expand...

It's not just about depth of field though. A larger sensor seems to give an image more 3D in the rendering. Also worth noting that many don't really notice that effect, hence a perception that M43 is equivalent.

FWIW I'd have a GFX or Blad system if I could justify the cost, for the increased depth to an image.
 
Last edited:
imattersuk said:
Plenty of time to save up and think of 1 million excuses to ditch the A1 then :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
You never know :lol:

Nah, the A1’s a keeper, can’t see anything else I need from a camera. Plus this was a present, wouldn’t go down well swapping it 6 months down the line ;)
 
ancient_mariner said:
It's not just about depth of field though. A larger sensor seems to give an image more 3D in the rendering. Also worth noting that many don't really notice that effect, hence a perception that M43 is equivalent.
Click to expand...
I’m yet to figure out why I perceive more 3D with larger sensors. I recently started a thread trying to get clarity on why larger sensors yield sharper images but so far there’s even less clarity, I hate to think what would happen if I tried to find out why larger sensors give images more depth :lol:
 
snerkler said:
I’m yet to figure out why I perceive more 3D with larger sensors. I recently started a thread trying to get clarity on why larger sensors yield sharper images but so far there’s even less clarity, I hate to think what would happen if I tried to find out why larger sensors give images more depth :LOL:
Click to expand...
I think you need to go and live with @Mr Perceptive for a month, he'll sort you out.
 
gilbouk said:
DSC06606 by Gilbo B, on Flickr

A common tern I believe - hovering while scoping out its next snack!! Again taken in Spain on my holidays
Click to expand...
Very nice. I saw two large Birds of Prey whilst out on the bike this morning which is not unusual, but the blighters are never out when I go out with the camera :headbang: :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
So the a9iii is now rumoured not to come out until the end of the year/early next year.

The empire strikes back: Here are the four new E-mount cameras Sony will announce within the next 6 months! | sonyalpharumors

https://youtu.be/SoMRNq2NgqM With relatively high confidence I can give you a rough roadmap of the next four camera announcements: Sony High End APS-C E-mount camera on July 12 New Sony A7cII: Announcement timeframe September/November New High Resolution Sony camera: Announcement timeframe...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
Click to expand...
Glad I didn’t wait and went for the A1 instead.
 
snerkler said:
Very nice. I saw two large Birds of Prey whilst out on the bike this morning which is not unusual, but the blighters are never out when I go out with the camera :headbang: :LOL:
Click to expand...
It's always the way of it - it's the exact same for me - whenever you see the best stuff - the camera is at home!!
 
ancient_mariner said:
It's not just about depth of field though. A larger sensor seems to give an image more 3D in the rendering. Also worth noting that many don't really notice that effect, hence a perception that M43 is equivalent.

FWIW I'd have a GFX or Blad system if I could justify the cost, for the increased depth to an image.
Click to expand...

We should be able to at least try and describe this and how to get there. IMO 3d rendering is likely to be a combination of dof and contrast and colour and the distances and spacial relationships in the frame and isn't necessarily limited to wide apertures and is IMO achievable with MFT but all this with any format will require the right conditions and compositions. Some of this is clearly out of our control but also some of this is clearly within our control.
 
woof woof said:
We should be able to at least try and describe this and how to get there. IMO 3d rendering is likely to be a combination of dof and contrast and colour and the distances and spacial relationships in the frame and isn't necessarily limited to wide apertures and is IMO achievable with MFT but all this with any format will require the right conditions and compositions. Some of this is clearly out of our control but also some of this is clearly within our control.
Click to expand...
You can of course get 3D rendering with M4/3 but not to the same degree as larger formats imo, even with lenses such as the lovely Panny Leica 42.5mm f1.2.

I’ve no idea what it is, maybe it’s micro contrast, maybe sensor size affects falloff somehow, maybe it’s simply the relationship between actual focal length and distance to the subject, all I know is that images from smaller sensors look flatter to my eyes when viewing equivalent images.
 
woof woof said:
We should be able to at least try and describe this and how to get there. IMO 3d rendering is likely to be a combination of dof and contrast and colour and the distances and spacial relationships in the frame and isn't necessarily limited to wide apertures and is IMO achievable with MFT but all this with any format will require the right conditions and compositions. Some of this is clearly out of our control but also some of this is clearly within our control.
Click to expand...

Alan, there are a huge number of factors at play here and you are right in that if enough of them are met you can achieve the effect with many sensor sizes - one that makes a big difference though is the focal length of the lens, if you shoot at 25mm on M43, I’m shooting at 63mm to get the equivalent 50mm FF FOV - this is even more pronounced in the film world 65mm on my previously owned Fuji GSW690 (6x9) is 14mm on M43.
 
snerkler said:
You can of course get 3D rendering with M4/3 but not to the same degree as larger formats imo, even with lenses such as the lovely Panny Leica 42.5mm f1.2.

I’ve no idea what it is, maybe it’s micro contrast, maybe sensor size affects falloff somehow, maybe it’s simply the relationship between actual focal length and distance to the subject, all I know is that images from smaller sensors look flatter to my eyes when viewing equivalent images.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that focal length explains it as we're able to replicate the framing and perspective with wider FoV lenses on the smaller format at the same distance. The properties of the lens will contribute though and differences may be visible to advantage or disadvantage one way or the other.

If we take the same shot with a FF 50mm f1.2 and a MFT 25mm f1.8 with anything like similar lens characteristics perhaps the biggest single noticeable significant difference will be the dof? But as above I don't think the pop in all this is necessarily limited to f1.x.

As above I could post endless MFT shots but really there's no point as there'll be 100 different opinions from 50 people viewing so we all need to make our own minds up. My opinion is that MFT can indeed provide a 3D effect and that in a blind test people could well struggle to weed out MFT shots demonstrating a degree of 3D rendering in amongst FF ones.
 
woof woof said:
I'm not sure that focal length explains it as we're able to replicate the framing and perspective with wider FoV lenses on the smaller format at the same distance. The properties of the lens will contribute though and differences may be visible to advantage or disadvantage one way or the other.

If we take the same shot with a FF 50mm f1.2 and a MFT 25mm f1.8 with anything like similar lens characteristics perhaps the biggest single noticeable significant difference will be the dof? But as above I don't think the pop in all this is necessarily limited to f1.x.

As above I could post endless MFT shots but really there's no point as there'll be 100 different opinions from 50 people viewing so we all need to make our own minds up. My opinion is that MFT can indeed provide a 3D effect and that in a blind test people could well struggle to weed out MFT shots demonstrating a degree of 3D rendering in amongst FF ones.
Click to expand...
One of the things that really opened my eyes to this was when Toby shot the same picture on M43 and a D810, both with decent zooms IIRC, to enable side-by-side comparison. The M43 image was just flat, the D810 image deep and alive. It wasn't f1.x for that.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Alan, there are a huge number of factors at play here and you are right in that if enough of them are met you can achieve the effect with many sensor sizes - one that makes a big difference though is the focal length of the lens, if you shoot at 25mm on M43, I’m shooting at 63mm to get the equivalent 50mm FF FOV - this is even more pronounced in the film world 65mm on my previously owned Fuji GSW690 (6x9) is 14mm on M43.
Click to expand...

The focal length of the lens comes with an aperture size and the focal length will affect the framing or distances. FF apertures of f1.2/f1.4 can't be matched by MFT but the framing, FoV etc can be and as above I'm convinced that 3D pop isn't necessarily limited to the widest apertures.

If the argument is that MFT can't match FF for limited DoF then fair enough but to say that MFT can't provide a degree of 3D effect is on much more shaky ground.
 
ancient_mariner said:
One of the things that really opened my eyes to this was when Toby shot the same picture on M43 and a D810, both with decent zooms IIRC, to enable side-by-side comparison. The M43 image was just flat, the D810 image deep and alive. It wasn't f1.x for that.
Click to expand...

I don't know as I didn't see the shots but as above I don't think that 3D pop is limited to f1.x. Things may be easier at f1.x but it should still be possible with some shots at smaller apertures and with smaller formats but I think once we get smaller than MFT things are getting hard. It'll always depend on the light and the contrast and the scene and the spacial relationships and everything else and more so as we get into smaller apertures.

As I keep saying. We need to start at the end result we want and work back to decide the kit and the settings. Going by that mantra if 3D pop is what's required we need to understand what we're trying to achieve and how best to get it. It wont be possible with any format in all situations and with all compositions but it should be possible when the light, composition, kit and settings are conducive, even with MFT.
 
A poster here is getting pulsating focus with a Samyang 135mm f1.8 on an A7s...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Sony A7SII Focus Problems

I have recently acquired a Sony A7SII. Does anyone have any experience with the camera body? I seem to be having problems with the autofucus system prodominantly in the AF-C mode; where the focus just seems to pulsate without locking on to anything. I only have one lens a Samyang 135mm 1.8 AF I...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

Maybe someone can help?
 
Brazo said:
If I were to buy a Godox V860iii and one Godox X1R-S I would be able to fire the flash off camera?

If I bought two Godox X1R-S's I would be able to fire one studio light? Three Godox X1R-S's and I could fire two studio lights and so on?

TIA!
Click to expand...
To fire the flash off-camera you need one of the Sony fit Godox Triggers - these are the X1T-S, X2T-S, X Pro-S and X Pro ii-S
The V860iii has a receiver built in, so you don't need a separate receiver for that.

To fire the studio lights you need one X1R-S per studio light (actually, since you are using them to trigger via the sync cord you could use X1R-C or X1R-N as well - the hotshoe fitting on the receiver doesn't matter, and ANY fit of Godox Trigger will fire ANY fit of Godox receiver) - hence the suggestion that you could buy just one X1R-N, then use your Pocketwizard trigger on that to thne trigger the three studio lights using your existing pocketwizard receivers.
 
Faldrax said:
To fire the flash off-camera you need one of the Sony fit Godox Triggers - these are the X1T-S, X2T-S, X Pro-S and X Pro ii-S
The V860iii has a receiver built in, so you don't need a separate receiver for that.

To fire the studio lights you need one X1R-S per studio light (actually, since you are using them to trigger via the sync cord you could use X1R-C or X1R-N as well - the hotshoe fitting on the receiver doesn't matter, and ANY fit of Godox Trigger will fire ANY fit of Godox receiver) - hence the suggestion that you could buy just one X1R-N, then use your Pocketwizard trigger on that to thne trigger the three studio lights using your existing pocketwizard receivers.
Click to expand...
Thankyou that’s much clearer now.
 
ancient_mariner said:
One of the things that really opened my eyes to this was when Toby shot the same picture on M43 and a D810, both with decent zooms IIRC, to enable side-by-side comparison. The M43 image was just flat, the D810 image deep and alive. It wasn't f1.x for that.
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
The focal length of the lens comes with an aperture size and the focal length will affect the framing or distances. FF apertures of f1.2/f1.4 can't be matched by MFT but the framing, FoV etc can be and as above I'm convinced that 3D pop isn't necessarily limited to the widest apertures.

If the argument is that MFT can't match FF for limited DoF then fair enough but to say that MFT can't provide a degree of 3D effect is on much more shaky ground.
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
I don't know as I didn't see the shots but as above I don't think that 3D pop is limited to f1.x. Things may be easier at f1.x but it should still be possible with some shots at smaller apertures and with smaller formats but I think once we get smaller than MFT things are getting hard. It'll always depend on the light and the contrast and the scene and the spacial relationships and everything else and more so as we get into smaller apertures.

As I keep saying. We need to start at the end result we want and work back to decide the kit and the settings. Going by that mantra if 3D pop is what's required we need to understand what we're trying to achieve and how best to get it. It wont be possible with any format in all situations and with all compositions but it should be possible when the light, composition, kit and settings are conducive, even with MFT.
Click to expand...
It was these shots, one with the Nikon D850 and 24-70mm f2.8, one with the Olympus EM1 and 12-40mm f2.8, both shot stopped down and using the hyperfocal distance. Colours matched in LR the best I could.


Screen Shot 2018-09-06 at 13.24.37 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2018-09-06 at 13.25.00 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr


There's one glaring difference which I'll come back to once people have viewed them for themselves, but I agree the M4/3 image is 'flatter' and it's even more obvious to me now, when I first shot them I struggled to see the difference but I feel that my eye is 'keener' these days. I think it's easier to see going back and forth on flick than viewing on here so I've made them public for a while.

Alan, for the look I'm talking about DOF is certainly a very big part of it, in fact the biggest part from my experimentation. However, to get the ultimate pop all planets have to align and factors such as focal length, subject distance, POV, light etc etc. However, even with all planets arrived I still find that my shots with FF have more depth/3D to them even with shots like above that weren't shot wide open, I just have no idea why :thinking:
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Alan, for the look I'm talking about DOF is certainly a very big part of it, in fact the biggest part from my experimentation. However, to get the ultimate pop all planets have to align and factors such as focal length, subject distance, POV, light etc etc. However, even with all planets arrived I still find that my shots with FF have more depth/3D to them even with shots like above that weren't shot wide open
Click to expand...

This IMO is very true, DOF plays a big part, but its combined with lots of things. To get decent 'pop' you need plenty of background for the subject to 'pop' from, and by its nature you need a relatively shallow DOF, but as the sensor size increases there is less demand on the glass, hence the medium format look on film can easily be achieved without stretching to f1.x in fact F2.8/F4/F5.6 can produce amazing results. The advantage of bigger sensors (IMO) in this look is that its put less of a requirement on all the other parameters, working distance, FOV, lighting, etc to get some depth in the image.

I am a firm believer that my GFX images have plenty of depth in them, even images shot at F8/F11 have much more to them than an equivalent image on my X100F, its one aspect that makes me like the system so much, as in reality its quite clumbersome, not from a weight POV but from a bulk POV, even changing lenses due to the large diameter can be a bit of a chore, and from a handling point of view I much prefer my X100F, the GFX is quite a 'technical system', but I forgive everything when I look at the images. This is why often I'll go out with just a single lens on the GFX and use it like supersized X100 series camera.

@woof woof I'm not saying that you can't get 'pop' from smaller sensors, it just becomes harder work, and IMO you need the light on your side.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
@woof woof I'm not saying that you can't get 'pop' from smaller sensors, it just becomes harder work, and IMO you need the light on your side.
Click to expand...

I perhaps shouldn't have responded to this at all as these things often go on and drift. The original point I was answering was that with MFT M43 where everything is in the same plane and could have just been painted in 2 dimensions only. This plainly isn't necessarily and always true. Obviously you can get a degree of 3D like separation with MFT if conditions are right and we do need to remember that a larger format wont deliver this pop with every shot either, the same rules apply, they just apply more with MFT.
 
snerkler said:
It was these shots, one with the Nikon D850 and 24-70mm f2.8, one with the Olympus EM1 and 12-40mm f2.8, both shot stopped down and using the hyperfocal distance. Colours matched in LR the best I could.
Click to expand...

To me there are clear differences in those shots which could have been more equalised in processing.

snerkler said:
There's one glaring difference which I'll come back to once people have viewed them for themselves, but I agree the M4/3 image is 'flatter' and it's even more obvious to me now, when I first shot them I struggled to see the difference but I feel that my eye is 'keener' these days. I think it's easier to see going back and forth on flick than viewing on here so I've made them public for a while.

Alan, for the look I'm talking about DOF is certainly a very big part of it, in fact the biggest part from my experimentation. However, to get the ultimate pop all planets have to align and factors such as focal length, subject distance, POV, light etc etc. However, even with all planets arrived I still find that my shots with FF have more depth/3D to them even with shots like above that weren't shot wide open, I just have no idea why :thinking:
Click to expand...

I don't think focal length is the right phrase here, I think FoV is better as that allows us to consider different focal lengths on different formats if the FoV ends up about the same. As above, I think the effect you are looking for is at least possible with smaller apertures if other things needed fall into place but you're not going to get the exact ultimate look you'll get from a specific FF camera and lens from any other format and lens as the differences just mount up.

At the risk of upsetting people who live for shallow DoF and remembering that it's something we all do from time to time I do think it can be overdone. I do this too but mostly when I've just bought a lens and I'm doing a road test involving shooting at different distances and apertures, Generally though and just for my own personal taste I think some shots we see on this forum would be better for having more DoF. This is just my own opinion.
 
woof woof said:
A poster here is getting pulsating focus with a Samyang 135mm f1.8 on an A7s...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Sony A7SII Focus Problems

I have recently acquired a Sony A7SII. Does anyone have any experience with the camera body? I seem to be having problems with the autofucus system prodominantly in the AF-C mode; where the focus just seems to pulsate without locking on to anything. I only have one lens a Samyang 135mm 1.8 AF I...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

Maybe someone can help?
Click to expand...
I have dusted off my A7SII and had a look, I think Nandbytes is spot on with their assessment that it's a normal result from the camera being CDAF only.
woof woof said:
At the risk of upsetting people who live for shallow DoF and remembering that it's something we all do from time to time I do think it can be overdone. I do this too but mostly when I've just bought a lens and I'm doing a road test involving shooting at different distances and apertures, Generally though and just for my own personal taste I think some shots we see on this forum would be better for having more DoF. This is just my own opinion.
Click to expand...
It's always something that has been overdone at times although I do appreciate a proper shallow DoF shot these days as I see so many fake DoF shots from phone cameras which often just don't look right.

I remember going back years in the 4/3 forums (the original DSLR format) the regulars used to always claim one of the strengths of the lenses/sensor were the 3D 'pop' in the images, it seems to be a claim that's made for many different systems.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top