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

[snerkler]

It seems as though my 16-35mm GM II is showing some signs of decentering at 35mm (seems OK at 16mm), here you can see the leaves in the bottom left corner (right picture) are very blurry compared to the top left corner (left picture). I did wonder if it was movement as it was a bit breeezy at times, but it was quite consistent (although not 100%) and shutter speed was 1/2500 so would have thought that would counteract any movement. Also it never looked like this in the other 3 corners.




Another example showing the same thing (200%)





This time I shot it so just the building was in the corner to rule out movement of the leaves, there doesn't look a lot in it although the very bottom edge is ever so slightly softer. Can anyone hazard a guess why the leaves consistently look really bad in the bottom left corner of the frame?

 

[snerkler]

Here you can see on the house the performance looks OK ("bad" corner on the right again)






But here with leaves again you can see it's getting blurry right in the corner, very odd.

 

[nandbytes]

Oh wow, I would love them too but I am so skint after the Fuji X100VI and bought flight and hotel this week.

Did you manage to get hold of a x100vi?
Or still on preorder?

 

[nandbytes]

Here you can see on the house the performance looks OK ("bad" corner on the right again)

View attachment 420385




But here with leaves again you can see it's getting blurry right in the corner, very odd.

View attachment 420386

Looks acceptable to me.
If lens rentals' Roger Cicala is to be believed, most if not all zoom lenses will have a weak spot that'll show some amount of decentering. It's a shame if it's at the either end of the zoom range especially on a UWA zoom since those are normally the most used focal lengths. Compared to say a 200-600mm for example where most people would use it at 600mm most of the time.

I'd personally would not have an issue with this depending on how much I paid for the lens. Obviously yours is a new one, in which case I'd have personally sent it back for a better copy that didn't show decentering at both ends of the zoom range. If I bought it used at a good price, I'd have kept it.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Did you manage to get hold of a x100vi?
Or still on preorder?

I picked it up end of March, almost 3 weeks ago now.

 

[nandbytes]

I picked it up end of March, almost 3 weeks ago now.

Have you tried the AF tracking, especially eyeAF compared to your Sony?
We bought the X100V and ended up selling it because it didn't work out well as our family camera with two active kids
but it was really lovely to use it otherwise.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Have you tried the AF tracking, especially eyeAF compared to your Sony?
We bought the X100V and ended up selling it because it didn't work out well as our family camera with two active kids

Not really. I've only taken some local street stuff with it so far. Probably won't get to take any pics of kids until I visit my sister and her kids.

 

[nandbytes]

Not really. I've only taken some local street stuff with it so far. Probably won't get to take any pics of kids until I visit my sister and her kids.

if you do end up using it with your sister's kids I'd be interested in hearing how you got along.

 

[snerkler]

Looks acceptable to me.
If lens rentals' Roger Cicala is to be believed, most if not all zoom lenses will have a weak spot that'll show some amount of decentering. It's a shame if it's at the either end of the zoom range especially on a UWA zoom since those are normally the most used focal lengths. Compared to say a 200-600mm for example where most people would use it at 600mm most of the time.

I'd personally would not have an issue with this depending on how much I paid for the lens. Obviously yours is a new one, in which case I'd have personally sent it back for a better copy that didn't show decentering at both ends of the zoom range. If I bought it used at a good price, I'd have kept it.

With the buildings I have no issue with it, but the leaves on the examples I posted are very blurry, but I can't figure out why? The issue with returning it is what's the next copy going to be like

 

[nandbytes]

With the buildings I have no issue with it, but the leaves on the examples I posted are very blurry, but I can't figure out why? The issue with returning it is what's the next copy going to be like

I never use leaves, they could be moving for example and with so many its hard to see what's going on.
The age old brick walls are time tested subjects

generally I don't come across too many bad copies of Sony lenses these days. I think you are having a bit of a bad luck with them, though I wouldn't class this as bad, I just think it can be better.

 

[snerkler]

I never use leaves, they could be moving for example and with so many its hard to see what's going on.
The age old brick walls are time tested subjects

generally I don't come across too many bad copies of Sony lenses these days. I think you are having a bit of a bad luck with them, though I wouldn't class this as bad, I just think it can be better.

I will try it again, I do tend to use static subjects but I just noticed the leaves in front. They are really bad, I don’t think they’re showing it as bad on here.

With regards to movement that was my first thought, but at 1/2500 shutter? And it would be a huge coincidence if they only moved when I was taking shots for the bottom left corner

 

[ancient_mariner]

I will try it again, I do tend to use static subjects but I just noticed the leaves in front. They are really bad, I don’t think they’re showing it as bad on here.

With regards to movement that was my first thought, but at 1/2500 shutter? And it would be a huge coincidence if they only moved when I was taking shots for the bottom left corner

They are smudgy rather than suffering motion blur. It may be because they are small points of detail rather than a solid geometric pattern that they appear worse.

 

[woof woof]

Oh wow, I would love them too but I am so skint after the Fuji X100VI and bought flight and hotel this week.

I thought of you when I saw that anamorphic lens as I seem to remember you posting about them a while back.

 

[woof woof]

Have you tried the AF tracking, especially eyeAF compared to your Sony?
We bought the X100V and ended up selling it because it didn't work out well as our family camera with two active kids
but it was really lovely to use it otherwise.

I'd like to see Sony do something like this with either a fixed lens or a changeable one and get the focus to work consistently and the general operation quicker. I'd also like some resistance and feel to the focus ring as my X100s and f had none at all.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I thought of you when I saw that anamorphic lens as I seem to remember you posting about them a while back.

I wanted it for Japan but I couldn't justify spending £900 for a new one.

 

[nandbytes]

I will try it again, I do tend to use static subjects but I just noticed the leaves in front. They are really bad, I don’t think they’re showing it as bad on here.

With regards to movement that was my first thought, but at 1/2500 shutter? And it would be a huge coincidence if they only moved when I was taking shots for the bottom left corner

motion blur is more prominent at edges of the screen than the centre. Leaves in wind can come up blurry.
Plus even if we say its not motion blur its hard to make out much tbh.

 

[nandbytes]

I'd like to see Sony do something like this with either a fixed lens or a changeable one and get the focus to work consistently and the general operation quicker. I'd also like some resistance and feel to the focus ring as my X100s and f had none at all.

Well RX1RII successor would do it for me. It even has a sharper lens that can resolve a high res sensor unlike the one in X100VI.
With the sensor and IBIS from A7RC, EVF from RX100vii... it'd be a small beast

 

[woof woof]

I'd want a fixed evf rather than a pop up one though.

 

[nandbytes]

I'd want a fixed evf rather than a pop up one though.

you can leave it popped up with a eye cup if you wish.
it is a bit fiddly at times but the one RX100vi/vii is really nice. The operation is smoother unlike the older models.
but I also wouldn't mind a x100 style body, in fact prefer the size of LX100 bodies I had to RX1 or RX100.

 

[snerkler]

They are smudgy rather than suffering motion blur. It may be because they are small points of detail rather than a solid geometric pattern that they appear worse.

motion blur is more prominent at edges of the screen than the centre. Leaves in wind can come up blurry.
Plus even if we say its not motion blur its hard to make out much tbh.

Thanks. I get that corners are worse and that smaller detail’s worse but why only that one corner?

I’ll try the brick wall test, what focus distance should I be at for that?

 

[snerkler]

Definitely decentered

 

[f/1.2]

Mooooooo

 

[nandbytes]

Yeah... I'd send this one back
These shots do look bad but I've seen worst, wouldn't class them as terrible.
At "landscapes apertures" you might not even notice it.

Definitely decentered

View attachment 420400

View attachment 420403

 

[woof woof]

you can leave it popped up with a eye cup if you wish.
it is a bit fiddly at times but the one RX100vi/vii is really nice. The operation is smoother unlike the older models.
but I also wouldn't mind a x100 style body, in fact prefer the size of LX100 bodies I had to RX1 or RX100.

I was skeptical of the X100 old style controls but after having them I now quite like them but I know that I wont be buying anything until my A7 fails and by that time who knows? Sony may have something out.

 

[snerkler]

Yeah... I'd send this one back
These shots do look bad but I've seen worst, wouldn't class them as terrible.
At "landscapes apertures" you might not even notice it.

It doesn’t fully clear up at f8

It’s going back, they’re doing a refund rather than a replacement though as they say they can’t guarantee the next one won’t be the same

 

[nandbytes]

It doesn’t fully clear up at f8

It’s going back, they’re doing a refund rather than a replacement though as they say they can’t guarantee the next one won’t be the same

Did you buy it from the same place as the 20-70mm?
If so I'm wondering if they rather not deal with buyers who test lenses

 

[Mr Perceptive]

they say they can’t guarantee the next one won’t be the same

This is true, its probably within manufacturers tolerance, another lens may exhibit the same issue or a slightly different one and still be within "Sony" tolerance (acceptability).

It doesn’t fully clear up at f8

The'once' seen 'never' unseen rule.

 

[snerkler]

Did you buy it from the same place as the 20-70mm?
If so I'm wondering if they rather not deal with buyers who test lenses

No, Panamoz this time.

 

[snerkler]

This is true, its probably within manufacturers tolerance, another lens may exhibit the same issue or a slightly different one and still be within "Sony" tolerance (acceptability).

The TV aerial is arguably acceptable for some but the wall photo isn’t imo, the right hand side picture is noticeably softer than the left hand side. Maybe more acceptable if it was a G lens (although not for me ) but not for a GM.

 

[f/1.2]

It doesn’t fully clear up at f8

It’s going back, they’re doing a refund rather than a replacement though as they say they can’t guarantee the next one won’t be the same

Sucks when that happens.

Better to know now though while you can return it.

 

[ancient_mariner]

The TV aerial is arguably acceptable for some but the wall photo isn’t imo, the right hand side picture is noticeably softer than the left hand side. Maybe more acceptable if it was a G lens (although not for me ) but not for a GM.

It also shows that we have different ideas of what is acceptable and what is not. Useful to remember.

 

[snerkler]

It also shows that we have different ideas of what is acceptable and what is not. Useful to remember.

Oh absolutely. Would anybody accept that wall example I posted though?

 

[nandbytes]

Oh absolutely. Would anybody accept that wall example I posted though?

Not a new one anyway.
Must have been a really good deal if I were going to accept that

 

[snerkler]

Not a new one anyway.
Must have been a really good deal if I were going to accept that

It’s a shame they won’t just replace it. I’ve sent my 16-35mm f4 off for appraisal already, I’ll just have to ask for it back

 

[Redspider]

My Sony A7CR seems to sometimes move the focus point. Several times over the last few weeks the focus point has been bottom right, upper left, and a few other places. This gives the impression it won't focus on the subject, until I realise that the focus point is elsewhere, in which time I've missed a good shot etc. However I never put it anywhere else but in the center. If I do move it for a photo, I immediately place it back in the center. In the menu I can fix the focus point in the center, but then I can't quickly move it for one off photo's. Any idea why it keeps moving?

 

[nog]

My Sony A7CR seems to sometimes move the focus point. Several times over the last few weeks the focus point has been bottom right, upper left, and a few other places. This gives the impression it won't focus on the subject, until I realise that the focus point is elsewhere, in which time I've missed a good shot etc. However I never put it anywhere else but in the center. If I do move it for a photo, I immediately place it back in the center. In the menu I can fix the focus point in the center, but then I can't quickly move it for one off photo's. Any idea why it keeps moving?

Assume you can focus with the screen on A7CR, maybe your nose is selecting the focus point?

 

[nandbytes]

My Sony A7CR seems to sometimes move the focus point. Several times over the last few weeks the focus point has been bottom right, upper left, and a few other places. This gives the impression it won't focus on the subject, until I realise that the focus point is elsewhere, in which time I've missed a good shot etc. However I never put it anywhere else but in the center. If I do move it for a photo, I immediately place it back in the center. In the menu I can fix the focus point in the center, but then I can't quickly move it for one off photo's. Any idea why it keeps moving?

Touchscreen?
Happens to me all the time on A7rv

 

[f/1.2]

My Sony A7CR seems to sometimes move the focus point. Several times over the last few weeks the focus point has been bottom right, upper left, and a few other places. This gives the impression it won't focus on the subject, until I realise that the focus point is elsewhere, in which time I've missed a good shot etc. However I never put it anywhere else but in the center. If I do move it for a photo, I immediately place it back in the center. In the menu I can fix the focus point in the center, but then I can't quickly move it for one off photo's. Any idea why it keeps moving?

On my A7CII I have the touch focus turned off and I use the dial for moving the focus point. I mainly use Tracking: Spot S

Never have any problems.

 

[snerkler]

On my A7CII I have the touch focus turned off and I use the dial for moving the focus point. I mainly use Tracking: Spot S

Never have any problems.

I always turn the touchscreen off.

 

[Redspider]

I always turn the touchscreen off.

Yes I have done that, yet to take some photo's since I did it. I hope the A7CR mk 2 has auto nose detection.