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

nandbytes said:
Tbh with you I am not sure what you are hoping to gain from a manual 35mm f2....
There some small light 35mm options with AF these days... Samyang 35mm f1.8, Sony 35mm f1.8, Sigma 35mm f2. All review pretty well.
Loxias aren't cheap and when they came out seemed like a great option but things have moved on and so has optics.

Voigtlander APO lanthar lenses aims for very high optical quality. May be that is something worth paying for.
but once again I am not sure how much better it is compared to the above AF options.
Click to expand...

Lenses today are better than they've ever been but manual lenses can offer things besides image quality. They're tactile, involving and some of them are compact compared to modern AF lenses. For me it not about image quality at all, it's mainly about the experience of using them plus the bulk and weight savings do come into it too for me. They're not for everyone though and an expensive buy could be regretted after any honeymoon period.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I looked it up on the Sony site for you - no, there's no AF with screw drive lenses. You need the LA-EA4. As far as I can see the 5 doesn't have a built-in focus motor, which is why it's much smaller than the older adaptors.

FWIW I have a 4 that works fine with screw drive lenses. The AF system is built into the adaptor and is the same as in the SLT cameras.
Click to expand...
The LA-EA5 does have a focus motor for screw drive lenses, but it's only active with the recent bodies, such as the A7iv.

It does a reasonable job, but it's clearly not as quick as the brute of a motor in my old A900 when using my Minolta 85 f/1.4 or Sony 50 f/1.4 (The old A900 was known for stripping AF gears from cheap / old Sigma's!)
 
Faldrax said:
The LA-EA5 does have a focus motor for screw drive lenses, but it's only active with the recent bodies, such as the A7iv.

It does a reasonable job, but it's clearly not as quick as the brute of a motor in my old A900 when using my Minolta 85 f/1.4 or Sony 50 f/1.4 (The old A900 was known for stripping AF gears from cheap / old Sigma's!)
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. How weird not to make it work on older bodies.
 
ancient_mariner said:
It's interesting that the box in the link says 17-50 but the link itself says 17-40.

A 17-50 would be really useful - I don't need the extra stop for this kind of lens like I need the extra focal length, and this sounds far more useful that the 18-28 which isn't even a 2X zoom. Have to wait & see about price and quality of course.
Click to expand...
I am very tempted to try this lens, I think it will suit the majority of my photography.

Should have thought yesterday whilst I was in WEX to see if they had one on display, I know they are still on pre order with them.

Anyone have one yet ?
 
First real chance to do a head to head with the A1 and Z9. Really difficult event shooting boxing with horrible flickering LEDs. There was another photographer there and she said she had a Z8 but not using it as it was too complicated and she hadn't learned it yet. She gave me a loan of the Tamron 35-150 so I could shoot a native, albeit 3rd party, fast lens head to head with the A1 instead of using the megadap.

The first thing that was obvious was the screens on the Z9 were flicker free. The A1s were horrible, flickering away like crazy. You could get rid of most of it my taking off the exposure preview but it was still there. Focus wise the Z9 was in auto area so it decided what to focus on. It pretty much grabbed the head or eye of the boxer facing me instantly and that was in the auto subject detection. Most of the bouts were with headguards and the A1 struggled to see the eyes and I shot in medium box with tracking placing the box on the head and tracking from there. Far harder shooting with the A1 but in the end I don't think there was a great deal of difference in terms of AF despite the different techniques. One huge difference was the amount of clean images without the darkness caused by the flickering lights. The Z9 destroyed the A1 in this regard and there was only a handful out of 3K that were not usable because of the lighting. The A1 had lots of images where the dark band was evident. Not even sure I even had anti flicker turned on with the Z9. Comparing the clean files again the Z9 came out on top. The colours were nicer and the sharpening looked a bit more pleasing. Both cameras were set with a manual Kelvin setting. Nothing wrong with either cameras files though, at least the clean ones. Battery wise the Z9 again destroyed the A1. I used them about equally and the A1 used pretty much a full battery so half capacity in the gripped body. The Z9 just clicked off the first bar so probably 25% capacity used. The Tamron lens was also very useful, focussed fast but the variable aperture meant I had to use auto iso.

If I had a fast lens for the Z9, at a focal length suitable for boxing, and I was asked to do that event again this week I would choose the Z9 in place of the A1. I will almost certainly add a Tamron 35-150 to my lens inventory but will leave it to see what brand I will end up going for in the next 6 months or so. All in all a win for the Nikon but my main use is Rugby and football where there are often lots of faces in the frame so a very different AF challenge. I'll see how the bodies compare in the months to come
 
Ah, took the camera and new Tamron 28-75 out on the dog walk this morning.
Just got it set on centre AF point which I find easiest for the dog.
Accidentally set a bracketing mode, for the life of me couldn’t work it out walking around, so put the camera away.
Within 5 minutes of getting back to the car, had worked it out. Something to do with ISO noise reduction
 
A couple from today, A7 and Pergear 35mm f1.4.

Mrs WW wanted the table and cloth in the picture.

f1.4.

1-DSC03525.jpg

I had breakfast but somebody got up too late, ate cream cake at church and then didn't want anything when we got home. Somebody does this a lot.

We walked there and back through the cemetery and fed about 100 squirrels. We can never take enough nuts and we did run out disappointing many more.

1-DSC03524.jpg

Did I mention that IMO this lens is an absolute bargain for the price. It is afaik the cheapest fast 35mm in Sony mount and probably by quite a bit.

I didn't take any squirrel pictures today as they're skittish and I only had a manual 35mm so here's one I took on another day with an AF 100-400mm lens on MFT :D

1-P1003439.jpg
 
Last edited:
wookie6262 said:
First real chance to do a head to head with the A1 and Z9. Really difficult event shooting boxing with horrible flickering LEDs. There was another photographer there and she said she had a Z8 but not using it as it was too complicated and she hadn't learned it yet. She gave me a loan of the Tamron 35-150 so I could shoot a native, albeit 3rd party, fast lens head to head with the A1 instead of using the megadap.

The first thing that was obvious was the screens on the Z9 were flicker free. The A1s were horrible, flickering away like crazy. You could get rid of most of it my taking off the exposure preview but it was still there. Focus wise the Z9 was in auto area so it decided what to focus on. It pretty much grabbed the head or eye of the boxer facing me instantly and that was in the auto subject detection. Most of the bouts were with headguards and the A1 struggled to see the eyes and I shot in medium box with tracking placing the box on the head and tracking from there. Far harder shooting with the A1 but in the end I don't think there was a great deal of difference in terms of AF despite the different techniques. One huge difference was the amount of clean images without the darkness caused by the flickering lights. The Z9 destroyed the A1 in this regard and there was only a handful out of 3K that were not usable because of the lighting. The A1 had lots of images where the dark band was evident. Not even sure I even had anti flicker turned on with the Z9. Comparing the clean files again the Z9 came out on top. The colours were nicer and the sharpening looked a bit more pleasing. Both cameras were set with a manual Kelvin setting. Nothing wrong with either cameras files though, at least the clean ones. Battery wise the Z9 again destroyed the A1. I used them about equally and the A1 used pretty much a full battery so half capacity in the gripped body. The Z9 just clicked off the first bar so probably 25% capacity used. The Tamron lens was also very useful, focussed fast but the variable aperture meant I had to use auto iso.

If I had a fast lens for the Z9, at a focal length suitable for boxing, and I was asked to do that event again this week I would choose the Z9 in place of the A1. I will almost certainly add a Tamron 35-150 to my lens inventory but will leave it to see what brand I will end up going for in the next 6 months or so. All in all a win for the Nikon but my main use is Rugby and football where there are often lots of faces in the frame so a very different AF challenge. I'll see how the bodies compare in the months to come
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks for sharing. It's hard to imagine any camera can "destroy" the A1 so the Z9 must be seriously impressive. What was the lighting you were shooting in as I've never had any screen flciker problems with the A1? Did you try changing the viewfinder frame rate?
 
LeeRatters said:
We went in August, (non-existent) sunrise, midweek too hence the recycling bins outside on the roads if you look carefully!!
Click to expand...

I'd take the bags over the tourists any day! I think I just timed it wrong, I stayed in Chipping Campden a few days and that was packed, went to Bourton on the Water and upper/lower Slaughter that was packed, Broadway was OK but pretty boring. Then I headed home via Winchcombe and Castle Coombe. Can't say I enjoyed any of it so wouldn't go again.
 
snerkler said:
Interesting, thanks for sharing. It's hard to imagine any camera can "destroy" the A1 so the Z9 must be seriously impressive. What was the lighting you were shooting in as I've never had any screen flciker problems with the A1? Did you try changing the viewfinder frame rate?
Click to expand...
4 very cheep LEDs one in each corner of the ring but set back a bit. They are nice and bright but the flicker is terrible. The flicker wasn't just the screens either but the final files. Wish I had taken a video of teh screens. If I could shoot with a slow shutter I suspect it would be fine but I am looking to shoot at 1/1000 at a minimum. I tried rolling through the variable shutter speeds but it didn't seem to help. The Z9 was on flicker so I must have had that on or forgot I put it on. I did nothing other than that. I've not had any issues with the A1 and flicker apart from these lights.

Here is what a section of files from the A1 and teh Z9 look like. You should be able to see all those wasted clicks caused by flicker on teh A1 files and lots more you won't see a little darkening at the top. The Z9 by contrast is just a few here and there. What I can't be sure about is if teh Z9 is waiting longer so reducing fps and delaying the shot more. I do get the feeling that may be possible. But I would have to do a better test to be sure

Untitled-1.jpgUntitled-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
wookie6262 said:
4 very cheep LEDs one in each corner of the ring but set back a bit. They are nice and bright but the flicker is terrible. The flicker wasn't just the screens either but the final files. Wish I had taken a video of teh screens. If I could shoot with a slow shutter I suspect it would be fine but I am looking to shoot at 1/1000 at a minimum. I tried rolling through the variable shutter speeds but it didn't seem to help. The Z9 was on flicker so I must have had that on or forgot I put it on. I did nothing other than that. I've not had any issues with the A1 and flicker apart from these lights.

Here is what a section of files from the A1 and teh Z9 look like. You should be able to see all those wasted clicks caused by flicker on teh A1 files and lots more you won't see a little darkening at the top. The Z9 by contrast is just a few here and there. What I can't be sure about is if teh Z9 is waiting longer so reducing fps and delaying the shot more. I do get the feeling that may be possible. But I would have to do a better test to be sure

View attachment 405236View attachment 405237
Click to expand...
Hmmm not good. I'm sure there's a setting on the A1 where you can set the shutter speed to obscure speeds like 1/125.69 to prevent banding, I'll have to look into it.

Did you try the different refresh rates for the EVF just to see if it made viewing better?
 
snerkler said:
Hmmm not good. I'm sure there's a setting on the A1 where you can set the shutter speed to obscure speeds like 1/125.69 to prevent banding, I'll have to look into it.

Did you try the different refresh rates for the EVF just to see if it made viewing better?
Click to expand...
Never tried the different EVF rates. When you actually start to focus it isn't horrendous so I just worked through it. I cycled through the variable rates but couldn't see much difference between them. I must read up about them again to make sure I am doing it correctly.
 
wookie6262 said:
Never tried the different EVF rates. When you actually start to focus it isn't horrendous so I just worked through it. I cycled through the variable rates but couldn't see much difference between them. I must read up about them again to make sure I am doing it correctly.
Click to expand...
Would be interested in your findings. Shouldn’t be that difficult though, the Z9 seems like it’s clearly easier to use if a Sony user gets it to work without any fuss yet they can’t figure out how to get the Sony to work properly. Maybe an area that Sony need to address, unless of course the Nikon is as complicated but by fluke it was already set up ;)
 
snerkler said:
Would be interested in your findings. Shouldn’t be that difficult though, the Z9 seems like it’s clearly easier to use if a Sony user gets it to work without any fuss yet they can’t figure out how to get the Sony to work properly. Maybe an area that Sony need to address, unless of course the Nikon is as complicated but by fluke it was already set up ;)
Click to expand...
Fluke is possible
 
I stopped using three of my A7 batteries today as they'd swollen. I could push them in but had to bang the camera up and down against the palm of my had to slowly work them out again and they were all getting progressively worse. One was my original Sony battery so that's lasted just short of ten years.
 
I should really get out and take some photos, I think the last time I used my camera was over 6 weeks ago :oops: :$
 
woof woof said:
I stopped using three of my A7 batteries today as they'd swollen. I could push them in but had to bang the camera up and down against the palm of my had to slowly work them out again and they were all getting progressively worse. One was my original Sony battery so that's lasted just short of ten years.
Click to expand...
Swollen batteries are major safety risk, and simply not worth it. Recycle asap
 
Finally picked my camera up for the first time in weeks. VERY heavy crop of a leaf then put through gigapixel to make it a half decent resolution.


A1_00419 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
Finally picked my camera up for the first time in weeks. VERY heavy crop of a leaf then put through gigapixel to make it a half decent resolution.


A1_00419 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I think it's possible to tell this one has been upscaled vs. Use of an actual macro lens.
Gigapixel is sometimes really great but doesn't always work especially on heavy crops
 
nandbytes said:
I think it's possible to tell this one has been upscaled vs. Use of an actual macro lens.
Gigapixel is sometimes really great but doesn't always work especially on heavy crops
Click to expand...
Completely agree (y)
 
snerkler said:
Finally picked my camera up for the first time in weeks. VERY heavy crop of a leaf then put through gigapixel to make it a half decent resolution.
Click to expand...
I think it looks like a picture of the landscape below taken from a plane. Very nice :D
 
nandbytes said:
I think it's possible to tell this one has been upscaled vs. Use of an actual macro lens.
Gigapixel is sometimes really great but doesn't always work especially on heavy crops
Click to expand...
It pays to play around with settings. Usually there is a combination that works better than others. Auto rarely gets it right and usually way overcooks. It is also best to start with a clean sharp file, ie. deal with one single problem at a time.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
It pays to play around with settings. Usually there is a combination that works better than others. Auto rarely gets it right and usually way overcooks. It is also best to start with a clean sharp file, ie. deal with one single problem at a time.
Click to expand...
absolutely, I rarely go with auto setting.
I wish I could just turn it off in Topaz but doesn't look like its possible. Simple wastes compute cycles each time.
 
nandbytes said:
absolutely, I rarely go with auto setting.
I wish I could just turn it off in Topaz but doesn't look like its possible. Simple wastes compute cycles each time.
Click to expand...
You can tick if off in the right side panel in the old apps, which are generally still better than the new PhotoAI. Upscale is probably now ever so slightly better in photoAI, combined with text preserve option. All the rest, I am afraid was a waste of my money. Denoise + Sharpen still work far better.
 
It may be useful to share that I find Sharpen AI can best deal with those poor zoom lens corners in Motion blur model, somewhere around 10..20 range for both parameters. Don't ask me why; it just does. Centre obviously works best with Out of focus or even left completely alone presuming there is actually no shake
 
LongLensPhotography said:
You can tick if off in the right side panel in the old apps, which are generally still better than the new PhotoAI. Upscale is probably now ever so slightly better in photoAI, combined with text preserve option. All the rest, I am afraid was a waste of my money. Denoise + Sharpen still work far better.
Click to expand...
yes I was referring to photoAI.
I use denoise+sharpen+gigapixel separately for pictures I am going to print or share at full res.
For images I share on the web or post on forums etc which are all mostly low-res photoAI is good enough 99% of the time.

Initially photoAI was a bit rubbish overall. But more recent versions have enough control in there for it to be useful as a single quick tool. Saves a lot of time since I am not going need "perfection" for every single image.

I think longer term topaz will deprecate the individual components and have photoAI for denoise+sharpen+gigapixel when photoAI is at parity with others.
That way they mostly just have to sell two tools - photoAI and videoAI.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
yes I was referring to photoAI.
I use denoise+sharpen+gigapixel separately for pictures I am going to print or share at full res.
For images I share on the web or post on forums etc which are all mostly low-res photoAI is good enough 99% of the time.

Initially photoAI was a bit rubbish overall. But more recent versions have enough control in there for it to be useful as a single quick tool. Saves a lot of time since I am not going need "perfection" for every single image.

I think longer term topaz will deprecate the individual components and have photoAI for denoise+sharpen+gigapixel when photoAI is at parity with others.
That way they mostly just have to sell two tools - photoAI and videoAI.
Click to expand...
The old apps haven't received any updates in over a year so that's that. I just hope they don't kill them entirely somehow.

PhotoAi has improved, but it wasn't enough over the individual apps so far. Denoise usually gets it a bit better but it is now somewhat less clear cut. Sharpen AI is still by far more powerful, configurable and just better. PhotoAI sharpen v2 module improved some over the disastrous initial v1 but in many cases it is just not enough to match it. Giga is probably where they are over the line. And then the whole RAW algorithm is foul foul foul.
As you said autopilot wastes a lot of time, so when you have a specific task in mind I find old apps just quicker.

In the best case I will take a break from subscription for at least 12 months, possibly more like 24... as long as the good old apps stay intact. I could instead put the money towards pro license of Davinci Resolve if money started burning a hole in my pockets.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
In the best case I will take a break from subscription for at least 12 months, possibly more like 24...
Click to expand...
I am on a break myself now. I have got the last major updates for denoise+sharpen+gigapixel which is what I rely on for the photos that matter i.e. that I print
I will renew when PhotoAI becomes one stop shop for all three, till then I am on a break.
LongLensPhotography said:
I could instead put the money towards pro license of Davinci Resolve if money started burning a hole in my pockets.
Click to expand...
I guess you won't like final cut pro. I can get it with student discount at the moment which seems like really good value for it.... still thinking.....
 
nandbytes said:
I guess you won't like final cut pro. I can get it with student discount at the moment which seems like really good value for it.... still thinking.....
Click to expand...
I don't have any realistic means to like it or dislike it. I am not going back to Mac for as long as they keep making overpriced non-repairable closed devices.

Some people on youtube rate final cut quite highly but lately everyone is either on Da Vinci or Premiere Pro. The later is very expensive subscription and people say it is not even that stable, while Da Vinci has a pretty functional and very stable free version. So for me the choice is very clear as video account for maybe 5% or less of my work. Some day I may want the full pro features.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I don't have any realistic means to like it or dislike it. I am not going back to Mac for as long as they keep making overpriced non-repairable closed devices.

Some people on youtube rate final cut quite highly but lately everyone is either on Da Vinci or Premiere Pro. The later is very expensive subscription and people say it is not even that stable, while Da Vinci has a pretty functional and very stable free version. So for me the choice is very clear as video account for maybe 5% or less of my work. Some day I may want the full pro features.
Click to expand...

I used Premiere Pro a lot in the past and liked it, but I struggle with Da Vinci, it doesn't seem as intuitive and I'm constantly looking up YouTube guides. But I think a big part of that could be how little I use it. I should probably just lookup a full walkthrough guide once and for all!

Free version is surprisingly powerful.
 
I found it interesting to see what people on the rumor site are hoping for in this poll...

Next week big Sony time! Poll, what do you hope to get? | sonyalpharumors

To not miss any of this exciting stuff a kind reminder to subscribe my networks! Social Networks: Subscribe my youtube channel: Usually I do post the rumors there 15-30min in advance before I post them on SAR Follow me on Twitter: Yep, I paid for the blue check so that you will actually see
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

There's nothing on that list that would get me ordering. I think I could be interested in a 35mm which is better than the Pergear and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4's, a small cheap manual 50mm which is better than the TTArtisan f2 and smaller than the Syoptic or a Sony mount compact manual 28mm f1.x. Other than that I can't think of anything I'd be exited about enough to buy :D

Anyone excited by anything on that poll?
 
woof woof said:
I found it interesting to see what people on the rumor site are hoping for in this poll...

Next week big Sony time! Poll, what do you hope to get? | sonyalpharumors

To not miss any of this exciting stuff a kind reminder to subscribe my networks! Social Networks: Subscribe my youtube channel: Usually I do post the rumors there 15-30min in advance before I post them on SAR Follow me on Twitter: Yep, I paid for the blue check so that you will actually see
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

There's nothing on that list that would get me ordering. I think I could be interested in a 35mm which is better than the Pergear and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4's, a small cheap manual 50mm which is better than the TTArtisan f2 and smaller than the Syoptic or a Sony mount compact manual 28mm f1.x. Other than that I can't think of anything I'd be exited about enough to buy :D

Anyone excited by anything on that poll?
Click to expand...
A1 firmware update if it brings something new.

85mm f1.2 if it doesn’t weigh a ton and it’s five years down the line when the price has dropped heavily ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top