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

woof woof said:
Another question.

I've been playing with the A7III's electronic shutter indoors and I haven't seen any banding but I do know this will depend on if lights flicker or not so for indoor use it could be ok for lots of uses. I'm thinking museums and churches etc when the noise of the shutter could attract attention but I'd take a practice picture first to check for banding. So that leaves rolling shutter, how is it for this? Would it be ok for slow moving subjects such as people posing but moving slowly as they do or for things moving more but still relatively slowly such as walking pace and what are subjects could it be expected to show visible distortion with?
Click to expand...
I got some in museums and churches...
Electronic shutter vs mechanical. Electronic one picked up the leds flickering.
Banding varied between bars like in prison and darker softer areas also bars
depending on the light, the darkenss.

alpha 7RM5 + 50macro sony
 
ecniv said:
I got some in museums and churches...
Electronic shutter vs mechanical. Electronic one picked up the leds flickering.
Banding varied between bars like in prison and darker softer areas also bars
depending on the light, the darkenss.

alpha 7RM5 + 50macro sony
Click to expand...

I've used my Panasonic MFT cameras with their electronic shutters under artificial lighting and both seen banding and not so I think maybe a practice shot is a good idea. Have to say that after reading somewhere that the A7III's electronic shutter wasn't so good I have been impressed with it at the first attempt. I think it will be useful for me at least some times.
 
woof woof said:
I've used my Panasonic MFT cameras with their electronic shutters under artificial lighting and both seen banding and not so I think maybe a practice shot is a good idea. Have to say that after reading somewhere that the A7III's electronic shutter wasn't so good I have been impressed with it at the first attempt. I think it will be useful for me at least some times.
Click to expand...
This is because some people don’t appreciate the difference between electronic and electric front curtain. Electronic is the better option. Yep banding is a thing though. With either option.
 
A7 and Sony 24mm f2.8.

DSC06985.jpg

YES! The A7 Is BACK!

I don't know how long for because I'm not sure exactly what fixed it as I didn't spot anything in particular and just had a general poke around cleaning and reseating and reassembling but it's working however as I'd put it in a binbag in the kitchen with Gosh knows what in it without a body cap I might have banjaxed the sensor. I've cleaned it but there are visible marks which may be stubborn stains or damage, not sure. I'm going to clean it again tomorrow as I've had enough fiddling today. If this can be reliably resurrected and if the sensor is ok I'll obviously keep the III and keep the A7 as a second camera as I do fancy having 24 and 40mm lenses on two cameras.

PS.
No screws left either :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
A7 and Sony 24mm f2.8.

View attachment 428376

YES! The A7 Is BACK!

I don't know how long for because I'm not sure exactly what fixed it as I didn't spot anything in particular and just had a general poke around cleaning and reseating and reassembling but it's working however as I'd put it in a binbag in the kitchen with Gosh knows what in it without a body cap I might have banjaxed the sensor. I've cleaned it but there are visible marks which may be stubborn stains or damage, not sure. I'm going to clean it again tomorrow as I've had enough fiddling today. If this can be reliably resurrected and if the sensor is ok I'll obviously keep the III and keep the A7 as a second camera as I do fancy having 24 and 40mm lenses on two cameras.

PS.
No screws left either :D
Click to expand...

Excellent! (however you missed the opportunity to shoot ANGER :ROFLMAO: rANGERover) - No screws is definitely a bonus!
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Excellent! (however you missed the opportunity to shoot ANGER :ROFLMAO: rANGERover) - No screws is definitely a bonus!
Click to expand...

Oh Yeah.

Back when I had a workshop and engineers there were often screws left over (not when I was doing the job, obs :D and actually most were from scrapped gear) so we used to keep them and of course as the years rolled on we had a them sorted into plastic bins and had screws for everything so there are good points to having screws left over :D

Just in case anyone else wants a starting point...

www.ifixit.com

Sony a7 Rear Disassembly Replacement

This is a pre-requisite list of steps that will act as a placeholder for all other applicable guides pertaining to the Sony a7.
www.ifixit.com www.ifixit.com
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
A7 and Sony 24mm f2.8.

View attachment 428376

YES! The A7 Is BACK!

I don't know how long for because I'm not sure exactly what fixed it as I didn't spot anything in particular and just had a general poke around cleaning and reseating and reassembling but it's working however as I'd put it in a binbag in the kitchen with Gosh knows what in it without a body cap I might have banjaxed the sensor. I've cleaned it but there are visible marks which may be stubborn stains or damage, not sure. I'm going to clean it again tomorrow as I've had enough fiddling today. If this can be reliably resurrected and if the sensor is ok I'll obviously keep the III and keep the A7 as a second camera as I do fancy having 24 and 40mm lenses on two cameras.

PS.
No screws left either :D
Click to expand...
That’s excellent news, hopefully you can sort the marks on the sensor or they won’t be too noticeable in the images.
Ps I’m glad I’m not the only one with little tubs in the shed full of screws/nuts and bolts etc haha.
 
Sounds like you're working on getting to know the new A7iii but if you do want a direct comparison/thoughts on A7 vs Cii then I have both as it's the move I made recently (and am happy with, but different needs/wants from a camera). For _me_, they're very similar ergonomically and every single thing about the Cii is slightly better, or a lot better (including button placement etc).

Actually, one thing worse - I don't like the unmarked EV compensation dial. I guess it's nice to be able to assign it to something else, but I like being able to look down at my camera, see how the lens and EV comp is set, then raise to shoot.

Nice hinged port doors on the Cii as well ;)

I probably will sell my A7 body at some point too, though it is quite old and externally beat up (though works fine) you'd probably not want it, and for what I'd get probably as well to keep as a spare.

And do try fix your A7, my wife and I disassembled and fixed her Nikon 18-200 and that was a very satisfying job. Proper JIS screwdrivers help a lot (most aren't Phillips on cameras!)
 
Last edited:
the_accidental said:
Sounds like you're working on getting to know the new A7iii but if you do want a direct comparison/thoughts on A7 vs Cii then I have both as it's the move I made recently (and am happy with, but different needs/wants from a camera). For _me_, they're very similar ergonomically and every single thing about the Cii is slightly better, or a lot better (including button placement etc).

Actually, one thing worse - I don't like the unmarked EV compensation dial. I guess it's nice to be able to assign it to something else, but I like being able to look down at my camera, see how the lens and EV comp is set, then raise to shoot.

Nice hinged port doors on the Cii as well ;)

I probably will sell my A7 body at some point too, though it is quite old and externally beat up (though works fine) you'd probably not want it, and for what I'd get probably as well to keep as a spare.

And do try fix your A7, my wife and I disassembled and fixed her Nikon 18-200 and that was a very satisfying job. Proper JIS screwdrivers help a lot (most aren't Phillips on cameras!)
Click to expand...

Since I stopped working I've become a bit of a technophobe and it's hard for me to get motivated to fix anything but as I'm stuck at home with a bug and Mrs WW is away I thought I'd give it a go.

One main gripe with the A7c series is the is the limited shutter speed with as far as I know no seamless automatic switch to the electronic shutter for faster speeds as my Panasonic MFT cameras have managed to do for years. This might be ok for zoom users but I'm just about exclusively a prime user and I do take pictures faster than f2.8 which is when there's a real possibility of running into the max shutter speed. Even 1/8,000 with no automatic shift to ISO 50 annoys me. I mean, come on Sony... wake up. I appreciate that the electronic shutter can be assigned to a button but really, having to press a button to get a faster shutter speed seems just wrong to me and just another thing to forget to do and assigning this to a button takes up one of the few available. Not exactly a win win there. This 1/4,000 issue alone is enough to kill the c series for me but there also seems to be a lack of physical controls which would also disappoint me and I'm not a fan of using touch controls on the screen or diving into menus for basic functions which should be a physical control away or automatic. Good luck to those who love these cameras but the irritations just keep mounting up for me. I do like smaller RF style cameras and I have three of them but the Sony's just seem to be too hobbled for me and as Sony seem to be quite stubborn I can't see a c series camera being for me anytime soon, if ever

I agree about the unmarked compensation dial. Just one more irritation to confirm that I'm right to keep away from this line of cameras.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Since I stopped working I've become a bit of a technophobe and it's hard for me to get motivated to fix anything but as I'm stuck at home with a bug and Mrs WW is away I thought I'd give it a go.

One main gripe with the A7c series is the is the limited shutter speed with as far as I know no seamless automatic switch to the electronic shutter for faster speeds as my Panasonic MFT cameras have managed to do for years. This might be ok for zoom users but I'm just about exclusively a prime user and I do take pictures faster than f2.8 which is when there's a real possibility of running into the max shutter speed. Even 1/8,000 with no automatic shift to ISO 50 annoys me. I mean, come on Sony... wake up. I appreciate that the electronic shutter can be assigned to a button but really, having to press a button to get a faster shutter speed seems just wrong to me and just another thing to forget to do and assigning this to a button takes up one of the few available. Not exactly a win win there. This 1/4,000 issue alone is enough to kill the c series for me but there also seems to be a lack of physical controls which would also disappoint me and I'm not a fan of using touch controls on the screen or diving into menus for basic functions which should be a physical control away or automatic. Good luck to those who love these cameras but the irritations just keep mounting up for me. I do like smaller RF style cameras and I have three of them but the Sony's just seem to be too hobbled for me and as Sony seem to be quite stubborn I can't see a c series camera being for me anytime soon, if ever

I agree about the unmarked compensation dial. Just one more irritation to confirm that I'm right to keep away from this line of cameras.
Click to expand...

I've never hit any issues myself shooting fully electronic - I've not shot anything but in the 6 months with the X100f and the only time the A7Riii goes mechanical is if I need ISO 50 I think.
 
LeeRatters said:
I've never hit any issues myself shooting fully electronic - I've not shot anything but in the 6 months with the X100f and the only time the A7Riii goes mechanical is if I need ISO 50 I think.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's a case of change my ways or change the kit and at the moment luckily I get to change the kit, mostly, for something that suits me a little bit better. I've no doubt that in the future consumers will be given much less choice and as Mrs WW constantly says "No one else cares." And she's right :D
 
TBH I quite often hit the 1/8000 shutter speed limit shooting wide open outside, and I'm amazed more don't do so too.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH I quite often hit the 1/8000 shutter speed limit shooting wide open outside, and I'm amazed more don't do so too.
Click to expand...

With the f1.2 lenses I find that selecting ISO 50 does a better job than I can do by reducing the exposure from ISO 100 post capture.

It's only a small percentage of my pictures that are affected but for those that are I do wish Sony would introduce faster than 1/8,000 shutter speeds and if it has to be via the electronic shutter make it a seamless automatic switch as per with my Panasonics.
 
Well... Looks like Artralab can't be bothered to reply to me. Shame. A decently made lens with good IQ spoilt by a widely inaccurate aperture mechanism and zero interest in any customer service. Lesson Learned there.
 
woof woof said:
Well... Looks like Artralab can't be bothered to reply to me. Shame. A decently made lens with good IQ spoilt by a widely inaccurate aperture mechanism and zero interest in any customer service. Lesson Learned there.
Click to expand...

Well well well. Two polite emails were ignored but a snotty email gets an immediate response.

"Dear Alan,

Sorry for late reply , may be our colleague overlooked, please forgive us with lack of manpower as a start up.

Anyway, thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns about the Artralab 35mm f1.4 lens. What you are experiencing with the aperture markings is indeed a known characteristic of this lens. For aesthetic reasons, the marked aperture values do not perfectly reflect the actual aperture sizes.

If this characteristic significantly impacts your work and you feel this lens may not suit your needs, please reach out to Amazon's customer service. Thank you for your understanding and for choosing Artralab. --- I hope this helps!"

"Aesthetic reasons"? What a load of absolute tosh.

And to remind anyone who's interested when set to f8 this piece of tat gives an aperture opening which looks to be something like f3.5 and these inaccuracies are repeated throughout the range and I don't believe it's f1.4 wide open either.

I think it is fair to say that the aperture makings are utter tosh. I wont say words fail me but I will say my words aren't suitable for posting here :D

What a bunch of absolute clowns :ROFLMAO: Needless to say mine is going back.

I don't suppose there are any potential buyers reading this but just in case there are, you have been warned.

I think it is actually a f1.6/1.8 (or there abouts) to f8 lens with aperture markings that aren't even for indication only. The markings might as well be in Klingon.
 
Last edited:
What was it like wide-open? If it still produces nice images then it's worth keeping.
 
ancient_mariner said:
What was it like wide-open? If it still produces nice images then it's worth keeping.
Click to expand...

As a reproduction of an old lens the IQ is ok to very good. I'd say mostly better than the Pergear 35mm f1.4 and in some respects better than the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 especially at identical stated wide apertures but here we have to remember that the Artralab probably isn't f1.4 anyway so we should compare it to the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 with the Voigtlander stopped down a bit. Whilst the Artralab may or may not challenge the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 wide open or stopped down a bit it's not in the same class as the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2. Good points include it being good at f1.4 (but it has to be remembered that it probably isn't at f1.4 anyway,) my copy was also incredibly well centered with even corners wide open, quite an achievement.

The reason I didn't keep it is that I didn't want to have to remember that to get a f5.6 look I'd have to set it to f11 and to get f8 I'd have to set it to f16 and of course as f16 is the minimum there's no way to get depth resembling anything like you'd get from another 35mm at apertures smaller than f8.

£387.72 is IMO too much to ask for this lens in this condition. If it was marketed as f1.6-f8 and had accurate markings then I don't think I'd be happy with it as I do occasionally use smaller than f8 apertures for depth and that's impossible with this lens. And the Pergear is £120 from Amazon, £92 direct from Pergear.

I personally don't think the Artralab justifies the cost considering that it isn't what it says on the box. OK the Pergear isn't what it says on the box either but it is closer to what it claims to be and at a much much cheaper price.

PS.
On the cost. I was trying to decide what I would be willing to pay for the Artralab in this state and I came up with £0.00. I wouldn't have this lens in my collection if it was given to me. OK, someone else might but to me this lens is valueless and useless.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
As it's quiet.

A7 and Sony 40mm f2.5. Party lady. She walked into my composition, spotted me taking a picture and posed so I took it :D

DSC06708.jpg

I think they'd all had a lot to drink.

I keep turning the A7 on and taking a few pictures and it's still working. I'll have to have a go at cleaning the sensor next after its time in the kitchen waste bin bag. Oops.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I've set the A7III to use the extended ISO's and I'm impressed that the camera can focus and take a picture in very low light. I think that the pictures would be useable way past the A7's limit of 25,600 and with better IQ although IQ at these ISO's takes on a different meaning :D

Just thinking back to when I had a Nikon SLR with a kit lens and ISO 1,600 film and used to take pictures at gigs I'm certain that both my A7 and even more so this III could take useable pictures at the incredibly high ISO's which are available especially at the print sizes I had back then and at faster shutter speeds as back then with limited apertures, ISO 1,600 film and low double digit shutter speeds there was often motion blur.

I know there are people on this forum who say they wont use ISO's higher than a certain (and I think too low) setting but I'd much rather take a picture than not take one and NR can be done post capture and converting to mono might be an option if it'd help. My days of taking pictures at music venues are over and at the moment I think situations in which I'd use these fantastic ISO's will be few and far between but I suppose you never know and if I felt the need I would use them. Actually I took two pictures in Thailand of Mrs WW with her dog with my A7 at ISO 25,600 under awful artificial lighting and he died a few months later so they're the last pictures of them together. They are awful but useable because of their significance and they are better after denoise and even before they're better than nothing.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I've set the A7III to use the extended ISO's and I'm impressed that the camera can focus and take a picture in very low light. I think that the pictures would be useable way past the A7's limit of 25,600 and with better IQ although IQ at these ISO's takes on a different meaning :D

Just thinking back to when I had a Nikon SLR with a kit lens and ISO 1,600 film and used to take pictures at gigs I'm certain that both my A7 and even more so this III could take useable pictures at the incredibly high ISO's which are available especially at the print sizes I had back then and at faster shutter speeds as back then with limited apertures, ISO 1,600 film and low double digit shutter speeds there was often motion blur.

I know there are people on this forum who say they wont use ISO's higher than a certain (and I think too low) setting but I'd much rather take a picture than not take one and NR can be done post capture and converting to mono might be an option if it'd help. My days of taking pictures at music venues are over and at the moment I think situations in which I'd use these fantastic ISO's will be few and far between but I suppose you never know and if I felt the need I would use them. Actually I took two pictures in Thailand of Mrs WW with her dog with my A7 at ISO 25,000 under awful artificial lighting and he died a few months later so they're the last pictures of them together. They are awful but useable because of their significance and they are better after denoise and even before they're better than nothing.
Click to expand...
I'm more inclinced to go beyond ISO 12800 now with topaz denoise and LR denoise, but I can't remember the last time I needed to.

I just wish cameras would go to the extended ISOs in auto ISO, especially ISO 64 and ISO 50.
 
snerkler said:
I'm more inclinced to go beyond ISO 12800 now with topaz denoise and LR denoise, but I can't remember the last time I needed to.

I just wish cameras would go to the extended ISOs in auto ISO, especially ISO 64 and ISO 50.
Click to expand...

Yes. Automatic use of ISO's lower than 100 would be nice.

I've posted this one before, just posting again as this is the sort of picture I was thinking about. A7 and 35mm f2.8 at f2.8 and ISO 25,600, 1/100 and after denoise. It looks awful mainly I think because of the lighting but it and the other I took are well worth keeping as they're amongst the last pictures of Mrs WW and her dog.

1-DSC06981-Enhanced-NR-1.jpg

I'm sure the A7III will do better.
 
woof woof said:
I put one of these screen protectors on my A7III yesterday. I was quite impressed with it.


I also bought a Sony battery and one of these chargers which has a nice display.

Click to expand...
My charger looks identical to that, but with a different brand on it. Suspect there's a factory in china that churns them out for a range of resellers.
 
Here's some shots I took at the WSBK at Donington on Sunday

www.talkphotography.co.uk

World Superbikes Donington 2024

Here's a few shots from the WSBK at Donington on Sunday, more on Flickr. 1. A1_01654-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr 2. A1_01777-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr 3. A1_01469-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr 4. A1_02792-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr 5. A1_03646-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

Pic for attention ;)

A1_04941-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top