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

[Faldrax]

That's essentially a marketing talk. They can have a list of approved / recommended lenses and leave us the choice. Again they would fail in 8k 60p video and yet they don't. The difference is only how the camera writes the data.
It sounds like your car would not start or run in limp mode if you got budget tyre from indy garage. That's the sort of level of enraging insanity we are taking about

I'm sure Ferrari would limit the cars speed if you put a set of cheap remoulds on it if they had a way of doing so, as it won't handle properly at speed (actually modern high end cars probably will reduce power to the wheels if they detect loss of grip).

I don't tend to shoot video, so not really paid any attention to it, but a quick check of specs suggested that none of the Sony cameras do actually shoot 8k 60p,
The A1 does 8k 30p, and the A7Rv does 8k 25p.
Just wondering which Sony E-Mount camera has these 3rd party lenses working perfectly in 8k 60p?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I don't tend to shoot video, so not really paid any attention to it, but a quick check of specs suggested that none of the Sony cameras do actually shoot 8k 60p,
The A1 does 8k 30p, and the A7Rv does 8k 25p.
Just wondering which Sony E-Mount camera has these 3rd party lenses working perfectly in 8k 60p?

fair enough, must have thought about Z9 with same sensor.

8K30 is still double of 8K15 so my point stands

 

[LongLensPhotography]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsbAEHfe4KQ


So the Sigma is unfortunately an F4 lens in practical terms, particularly in the long end where 200mm at 2.8 is just foul unless most of early samples were bad copies. A very good F4 lens, and 70mm look very impressive. £1.5K for F4 sounds like a lot to be fair. A TC will be pointless on this lens, if you shoot L mount, so no worse than sony situation.

 

[snerkler]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsbAEHfe4KQ


So the Sigma is unfortunately an F4 lens in practical terms, particularly in the long end where 200mm at 2.8 is just foul unless most of early samples were bad copies. A very good F4 lens, and 70mm look very impressive. £1.5K for F4 sounds like a lot to be fair. A TC will be pointless on this lens, if you shoot L mount, so no worse than sony situation.

I've not watched the video but if it's only decent at f4 then it's a very heavy F4 lens too.

 

[nandbytes]

I've not watched the video but if it's only decent at f4 then it's a very heavy F4 lens too.

It's not that bad, it's just not bitingly sharp at 200mm wide open. I'd probably class it on the same level as the original GM version but I think GM might have been a wee bit shaper in the centre.
IMO it's certainly usable at 200mm and f2.8.
LLP is after perfectness in a zoom at affordable prices. Good luck to him

 

[LongLensPhotography]

It's not that bad, it's just not bitingly sharp at 200mm wide open. I'd probably class it on the same level as the original GM version but I think GM might have been a wee bit shaper in the centre.
IMO it's certainly usable at 200mm and f2.8.
LLP is after perfectness in a zoom at affordable prices. Good luck to him

This one looks actually quite bad at 200mm f2.8 image centre. CF made it very clear using their strongest language ever.
There is a sample of seagull on dpreview and that is truly shocking, but appears accurately focused. You should see it. 70mm f4 sample of some distant mountains on the other hand is outstanding. They are not the best samples but clearly 2 review sites flagged up major issues with 200mm. Your corners may start weaker but your centre definitely needs to start strong for today's product. Bad centre wide open may also give focus problems and obviously forget the TC.
Now this might be ok downsized to 24mp, just ok. But not great. You are well into canon EF 2.8 ii territory here and you can pick them up for around half price. Well you actually want to do away with lenses like that not buy another one at £1.5k.
The reviews all said tamron was basically cheaper, sharper and lighter, and recommendation was only for l mount where Panasonic version is basically even worse on every single count. Not my words, theirs

 

[nandbytes]

This one looks actually quite bad at 200mm f2.8 image centre. CF made it very clear using their strongest language ever.
There is a sample of seagull on dpreview and that is truly shocking, but appears accurately focused. You should see it. 70mm f4 sample of some distant mountains on the other hand is outstanding. They are not the best samples but clearly 2 review sites flagged up major issues with 200mm. Your corners may start weaker but your centre definitely needs to start strong for today's product. Bad centre wide open may also give focus problems and obviously forget the TC.
Now this might be ok downsized to 24mp, just ok. But not great. You are well into canon EF 2.8 ii territory here and you can pick them up for around half price. Well you actually want to do away with lenses like that not buy another one at £1.5k.
The reviews all said tamron was basically cheaper, sharper and lighter, and recommendation was only for l mount where Panasonic version is basically even worse on every single count. Not my words, theirs

Yeah tamron is an amazing lens. I'd buy it over the 70-200mm f4 G2 if only Sony would allow TC support
But tamron is "only" 180mm.

I imagine there'll still be people who really want 200mm f2.8 for shooting people, portraits, events etc. They may not be able to or want to fork out £2.7k. so it's an option for them.

 

[Mike.P]

Npfz100 battery currently on Amazon for £50

 

[snerkler]

Pergear 260gb CFexpress cards are back down to £119 for Black Friday, are those that have bought them still happy with them?

 

[Bungieben]

Pergear 260gb CFexpress cards are back down to £119 for Black Friday, are those that have bought them still happy with them?

I don't have a problem but had nothing to compare them too.

 

[nandbytes]

Pergear 260gb CFexpress cards are back down to £119 for Black Friday, are those that have bought them still happy with them?

I know someone who uses them in A7siii for video.
They seem to be pleased because it's a lot more affordable and claim it works just as well as Sony version. And since it's affordable they can afford to shoot in both card slots.

 

[snerkler]

I know someone who uses them in A7siii for video.
They seem to be pleased because it's a lot more affordable and claim it works just as well as Sony version. And since it's affordable they can afford to shoot in both card slots.

Thanks, I always use both slots so would have two

260GB would save me having to swap cards over too when I go to Donington and Silverstone etc.

 

[nandbytes]

Thanks, I always use both slots so would have two

260GB would save me having to swap cards over too when I go to Donington and Silverstone etc.

just found out he's ordered two 512GB versions. So I imagine he's really liking them lol

 

[nandbytes]

Definitely no opacity adjustment as far as I can see


Screenshot 2023-11-16 at 20.33.24 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Screenshot 2023-11-16 at 20.34.09 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

So I downloaded the trial version of the latest photoAI v2 release
TL;DR - you can change opacity

First time I opened an imagine this was the default opacity, so I figured you can still change it, they have just changed the place


Its bit of a faff and hidden now....
click on three dots on the top right corner (circled in the picture above)
Click on autopilot preference





then click on brush and use the "brush overlay" setting to change opacity

 

[snerkler]

So I downloaded the trial version of the latest photoAI v2 release
TL;DR - you can change opacity

First time I opened an imagine this was the default opacity, so I figured you can still change it, they have just changed the place
View attachment 406848

Its bit of a faff and hidden now....
click on three dots on the top right corner (circled in the picture above)
Click on autopilot preference

View attachment 406849



then click on brush and use the "brush overlay" setting to change opacity
View attachment 406851

Nice one, thanks for that I've not gone into all the settings yet, I'm not sure that I'm going to use it TBH.

 

[snerkler]

A1_01805-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

 

[Bungieben]

I had purposely captured images over / under exposed so i could mess about with LR and PS and all i can say is your all cheats.

 

[snerkler]

I had purposely captured images over / under exposed so i could mess about with LR and PS and all i can say is your all cheats.

????

 

[Bungieben]

????

Haha, just referring to how these programmes can recover bad images as long as your computer literate.

Ps, your Flickr photo's are not enlarging today.

 

[snerkler]

Haha, just referring to how these programmes can recover bad images as long as your computer literate.

Ps, your Flickr photo's are not enlarging today.

Ahh I see. How do you think I’ve managed half decent photos all these years

I’ve started uploading at 2048px instead of 3000px to see if they look better on here.

 

[LeeRatters]

I had purposely captured images over / under exposed so i could mess about with LR and PS and all i can say is your all cheats.

ISO invariance helps with that

 

[nandbytes]

Haha, just referring to how these programmes can recover bad images as long as your computer literate.

Ps, your Flickr photo's are not enlarging today.

computer programs can't make a bad photograph into a good photograph.
you need to compose correctly regardless.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Haha, just referring to how these programmes can recover bad images as long as your computer literate.

Any idiot can get exposure right in camera - just bung it in auto.

The negative is just the beginning of the image.

 

[wookie6262]

Pergear 260gb CFexpress cards are back down to £119 for Black Friday, are those that have bought them still happy with them?

Still happy with my 520gb. I actually had issue with one of my Sony 160gb Cards last night. Lost all teh images but fortunately had the images on second card so no harm done. I bought the larger card as I hate changing cards at events or games. So much nicer just shooting away without worrying

 

[woof woof]

I think it depends what the picture is for. If it's for likes on forums then that's one thing, if it's for the memory that's another and if it's Elvis riding Shergar that's yet another thing.

These are amongst the worst pictures I've ever taken. My A7 at ISO 25,600 under artificial lighting. After running Denoise in CS2023 they ok as a record shots as Tangkraw died a few months later so these are amongst the last pictures of him.

 

[woof woof]

On noise...

When we went camping I took some hand held shots at f1.4, ISO 25,600 and 1/50 just for something to do whilst Mrs WW went off to the loo. It was very dark and we were just about surrounded by high bushes and trees and even with a torch it was difficult to see more than your feet. When looking at the pictures even just on the evf I could see that on the bottom edge and the lower LHS there were lighter areas and an awful lot of noise. When taking the picture in portrait orientation the effect moved with the change in orientation to now be on the RHS and bottom edges.

I don't know if you can see it on this test shot I took at home with the lens cap on and whilst shining a torch all around the lens and mount.




I originally thought this might be my cheap Pergear causing a light leak so took this 20 second exposure whilst shining the torch all around the lens and lens mount but I don't think it is a light leak as I'd have expected something more if light was getting in. I don't remember taking any pictures in such darkness at ISO 25,600 before and pictures taken in similar away from the Highstreet darkness at lower ISO's like 6,400 and longer shutter speeds have been ok.

Could this be a light leak or could it be down to the very dark setting + the longer than usual exposure and possibly the camera being 10 years old?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

This looks like pretty expensive modern art if you only attach a certain name to it

 

[woof woof]

This looks like pretty expensive modern art if you only attach a certain name to it

We visited the Laing art gallery in Newcastle on Friday and saw much worse so I believe you.

 

[f/1.2]

Pergear 260gb CFexpress cards are back down to £119 for Black Friday, are those that have bought them still happy with them?

Still happy with mine, actually just bought some more.

 

[snerkler]

Still happy with my 520gb. I actually had issue with one of my Sony 160gb Cards last night. Lost all teh images but fortunately had the images on second card so no harm done. I bought the larger card as I hate changing cards at events or games. So much nicer just shooting away without worrying

Thanks. Yeah that’s why I’d like 260gb so I don’t have to change on the few occasions I do motorsport and get carried away

 

[Bungieben]

ISO invariance helps with that

Had to look that up, learn something new everyday.

 

[LeeRatters]

Had to look that up, learn something new everyday.

Last time out shooting the night skies. I used the A7Riii at 30 sec images for the light painted and ambient foreground shots at 24mm. And I had the A7 at 35mm for 90 sec images on the tracker for the skies. I thought it worked out quite well.

I chose that way because the skies were coming in at ISO 100/200 and the foreground obviously a fair bit higher.

Obviously a full panorama will be different but that's not too often anyway!

 

[trevorbray]

Used my 28-75 Tammy G2 on the dog walk, only the 2nd time I've mounted it to theA7R5
Cracking lens. Usual subjects

1
Lola-not my dog by Trevor, on Flickr

2
Daisy-not my Dog by Trevor, on Flickr

3
Brody-5 by Trevor, on Flickr

4
Brody and Ball by Trevor, on Flickr

5
Forest Floor by Trevor, on Flickr

 

[snerkler]

If this is anything to go by I might be rethinking the Tamron 17-50mm f4. I've heard it said (not by me) that the Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4 isn't great in the corners but here the Tamron seems to have much more distortion. Not sure if this is before or after correction though. Regardless, it doesn't look as sharp as the 16-35mm. These are both stopped down to f8.


Screenshot 2023-11-19 at 10.48.26 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

 

[LongLensPhotography]

If this is anything to go by I might be rethinking the Tamron 17-50mm f4. I've heard it said (not by me) that the Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4 isn't great in the corners but here the Tamron seems to have much more distortion. Not sure if this is before or after correction though. Regardless, it doesn't look as sharp as the 16-35mm. These are both stopped down to f8.


Screenshot 2023-11-19 at 10.48.26 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

I would expect this is done before distortion and vignette correction, because geometry transformation will reduce apparent sharpness pretty significantly. So the good news is it will hopefully have the profile at least in lightroom, but bad news it will then appear even softer. I told you this may be the case just from that wonky mtf graph. Lens is optimised at long end and centre performance. And yes, you can now do so much better than za lens on e mount. Gm2 should be much much better

 

[snerkler]

I would expect this is done before distortion and vignette correction, because geometry transformation will reduce apparent sharpness pretty significantly. So the good news is it will hopefully have the profile at least in lightroom, but bad news it will then appear even softer. I told you this may be the case just from that wonky mtf graph. Lens is optimised at long end and centre performance. And yes, you can now do so much better than za lens on e mount. Gm2 should be much much better

GM2 should be better but at a hefty cost, and I was hoping to have a more flexible zoom range. The 20-70mm looks a better performer but it’s not wide enough.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

GM2 should be better but at a hefty cost, and I was hoping to have a more flexible zoom range. The 20-70mm looks a better performer but it’s not wide enough.

You can have those mega zooms but performance penalty usually comes with it. It just makes sense to split them up into better, more manageable chunks. If you get a fairly affordable sigma 14-24 dn art now you have a lot of flexibility. That or 17mm contemporary prime.

The 20-70 is interesting as an affordable backup or all-round lens with a very broad zoom range. 20mm is already crazy wide, enough for even some interior work for bigger spaces. It is not something that I expect to rival primes, but hopefully it will be at least acceptable on 6k size.

 

[snerkler]

You can have those mega zooms but performance penalty usually comes with it. It just makes sense to split them up into better, more manageable chunks. If you get a fairly affordable sigma 14-24 dn art now you have a lot of flexibility. That or 17mm contemporary prime.

The 20-70 is interesting as an affordable backup or all-round lens with a very broad zoom range. 20mm is already crazy wide, enough for even some interior work for bigger spaces. It is not something that I expect to rival primes, but hopefully it will be at least acceptable on 6k size.

When you say 6K are you talking 6K screen resolution?

17-50mm isn't that much of a mega zoom, 3x zoom the same as a 24-70mm (near enough). The 14-24mm is too heavy as a general walkabout imo, and it's too wide. I do use 16-35mm a lot, whether it be landscapes or travel, but the idea of a 17-50mm would be near perfect (16-50mm would be better )

 

[LongLensPhotography]

When you say 6K are you talking 6K screen resolution?

Yes, what else. 20-24MP. Maybe 30 tops. Still plenty for a lot of work.

17-50mm isn't that much of a mega zoom

It is actually when you consider it is so difficult to make a good 16-35mm. If we are lucky GM2 may just about be there. All the others are at best 6K lenses, and they cost an absolute fortune in comparison with Tamron.

The 14-24mm is too heavy as a general walkabout imo, and it's too wide

Too wide, yes 14-16 bit is nearly useless.

It is not a general purpose lens at all. A real estate or special purpose lanscape lens when you have 20/24-70 in the bag.

Besides DN one is not that heavy.

but the idea of a 17-50mm would be near perfect (16-50mm would be better )

Many things WOULD BE but they are sadly not [yet]

 

[snerkler]

All the others are at best 6K lenses, and they cost an absolute fortune in comparison with Tamron.

16mp is plenty for me, I can get 75cm prints easy from that.

Too wide, yes 14-16 bit is nearly useless.

I've never used wider than 16mm

It is not a general purpose lens at all. A real estate or special purpose lanscape lens when you have 20/24-70 in the bag.

I don't think the 14-24mm is a general purpose lens, but I often use my 16-35mm as a general purpose lens.

Besides DN one is not that heavy.

It is for a general walkabout for me. Of course YMMV.