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

ancient_mariner said:
It's the other way round - with the landscapes you have to focus far and then for the OOF image it's necessary to focus close, which changes the effective focal length.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see. That's a pain. Probably a daft question but can you 'stretch' the smaller image to match or does the difference in FOV/perspective not allow for this?
 
snerkler said:
Ahh, I see. That's a pain. Probably a daft question but can you 'stretch' the smaller image to match or does the difference in FOV/perspective not allow for this?
Click to expand...

It could be done and I did give it a go, but all the careful composition of the infocus one goes to hell in a hand cart. I've plenty of other lenses I could use instead, but I love the crispness and rendering of the 50 f1.2.
 
I’ve just been looking at the Fuji GFX, it’s got a 35mm f4 lens, doesn’t this equate to something like a 28mm f3.2 in FF terms? Doesn’t sound like a particularly special lens :thinking:
 
snerkler said:
The A7cR is a better comparison due to the 61mp sensor, and that's £2649. That has 7 stop IBIS and is weather sealed though, remove those and you have a body that's probably worth £2k or so, and on that basis you're paying £2.2k for a 35mm f2 lens which is bonkers.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said I'd pay a little over £3k for the camera and its attached 35mm f2.

I like smaller kit and ideally I'd like something as small as the film era compacts I had. In those days I had a compact with a 35/43mm lens and my Nikon SLR but when I went digital IMO the bulk and weight went mental and I was never really happy with the size of my Canon DSLR's. Things aren't so bad these days as we have smaller choices but the closer I get to the bulk of the film days the better. I can't get back to film era weight because back then my cameras were basically an empty plastic box but getting back to the bulk would be nice. I do also find that I'm more comfortable with kit that doesn't attract as much attention and I think smaller is better in this respect. I do have smaller MFT kit but when you push it and look closely the IQ can't match FF and ditto APS-C because I can't stop myself looking closely plus I like to think in FF terms because that's what I had years ago so I do like FF kit.

As I've said before. I can afford any thing that I want but I can't get past my upbringing and spending what I think is too much on camera gear is very difficult. I'm not saying I'll never spend what I at the moment think is too much but at the moment it's a problem to get over. I am more likely to spend £4k+ on a RX1rIII than whatever a 1.2/1.4 GM lens costs because of the bulk, weight and obviousness and less stealthy nature of the larger kit which I don't like.

If there was a compact, nice, 35mm f2 lens available for my existing kit then I'd probably get one (and maybe an A7cII too and never think about an RX1 again) but there isn't and I doubt there ever will be. The closest you can get is a compact 35mm f2.8 or a 40mm f2.5 or a bigger 35mm f1.8 or f2.
 
Last edited:
Man maths.

I bought something but when it came it wasn't as described, the specification was a lie, so it went back. I now have the money back. I fancy another thing which is slightly more expensive but it's only £30 more than the thing that went back so in reality I'm only spending £30. Makes sense :D
 
snerkler said:
I’ve just been looking at the Fuji GFX, it’s got a 35mm f4 lens, doesn’t this equate to something like a 28mm f3.2 in FF terms? Doesn’t sound like a particularly special lens :thinking:
Click to expand...

Years ago I was looking at a friends wedding pictures. Not by choice, she forced me :D and straight away I said "These were taken with a very expensive camera" and they were.

I don't want to go larger than FF but there's no denying that larger formats can give you a special result. Having said that I think I'm right in saying that larger digital formats are smaller than the old film ones.
 
I can't remember if I said it in here or somewhere else..... But I think I would go A7C variant & the 40/2.5G if I wanted both small & FF.

The X100f is good enough though for small & light right now. I don't mind manual focus with the X100f but I do wish it was direct with distance markings on the lens - that would make it pretty much perfect I think (for me) - I shot Bristol Pride event last weekend on 35mm film & the X100f and I much preferred shooting zone focusing off of the film lens markings than I did looking at the 'digital' scale on the X100f. The X100f scale though does seem to be pretty accurate at least.
 
woof woof said:
Man maths.

I bought something but when it came it wasn't as described, the specification was a lie, so it went back. I now have the money back. I fancy another thing which is slightly more expensive but it's only £30 more than the thing that went back so in reality I'm only spending £30. Makes sense :D
Click to expand...

Textbook man maths right there :)
 
TBH the Sammy 35 f2.8 isn't bad, although focusing isn't exactly quick.
 
LeeRatters said:
I can't remember if I said it in here or somewhere else..... But I think I would go A7C variant & the 40/2.5G if I wanted both small & FF.

The X100f is good enough though for small & light right now. I don't mind manual focus with the X100f but I do wish it was direct with distance markings on the lens - that would make it pretty much perfect I think (for me) - I shot Bristol Pride event last weekend on 35mm film & the X100f and I much preferred shooting zone focusing off of the film lens markings than I did looking at the 'digital' scale on the X100f. The X100f scale though does seem to be pretty accurate at least.
Click to expand...

I remember posting when the Sony 35mm f2.8 came out that f2.8 was just enough and for a lot of things it is but you wont get those bokeh balls without working for them. f2.5 isn't a whole lot better and some would miss the difference between 1.8/2 and f2.5/f2.8.

Ignoring light for a moment and just looking at depth and bokeh. For me obvious difference between F1.2 and smaller apertures kick in at about f2.2 or so. By f2.5/f2.8 the differences will be quite obvious.

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Differences at f1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2, 2.8.

Just out of interest. The difference between f1.2 and f1.4 for DoF and bokeh has cropped up a couple of times so I thought I'd post a series of pictures. Note that I'm ignoring light gathering here and just looking at depth of field and bokeh. I looked at bokeh and depth of field years ago and...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

I hope I'm wrong but I just can't see anyone bringing out a mini G sized 35 or 40mm f2. I don't think companies will be willing to make the compromises. For me my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 gives acceptable performance at f2 with wider apertures being available for suitable scenes when the funkiness will be less noticeable and also for emergency use. I'd love a compact if less than stellar 35mm f2.
 
LeeRatters said:
Well, if you aren't going to leave your money to us lot, you might as well spend it :)
Click to expand...

An ex of mine is a very good economist and is currently working freelance as an advisor to the banking sector. It was sort of fun telling her my problem isn't making money, it's getting shot of it.
 
woof woof said:
I remember posting when the Sony 35mm f2.8 came out that f2.8 was just enough and for a lot of things it is but you wont get those bokeh balls without working for them. f2.5 isn't a whole lot better and some would miss the difference between 1.8/2 and f2.5/f2.8.

Ignoring light for a moment and just looking at depth and bokeh. For me obvious difference between F1.2 and smaller apertures kick in at about f2.2 or so. By f2.5/f2.8 the differences will be quite obvious.

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Differences at f1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2, 2.8.

Just out of interest. The difference between f1.2 and f1.4 for DoF and bokeh has cropped up a couple of times so I thought I'd post a series of pictures. Note that I'm ignoring light gathering here and just looking at depth of field and bokeh. I looked at bokeh and depth of field years ago and...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

I hope I'm wrong but I just can't see anyone bringing out a mini G sized 35 or 40mm f2. I don't think companies will be willing to make the compromises. For me my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 gives acceptable performance at f2 with wider apertures being available for suitable scenes when the funkiness will be less noticeable and also for emergency use. I'd love a compact if less than stellar 35mm f2.
Click to expand...

For me the big apertures are a must for night skies. And if I'm using the 35GM I do tend to shoot wide open a lot of the time - Some landscapes I will stop down a little bit. But, I'm not shooting with the GM as much as I used to, so I'm not shooting at big apertures much anymore, so..... two things - I either don't care for wide open look anymore, or I love it even more when I do actually use it :ROFLMAO:
 
LeeRatters said:
For me the big apertures are a must for night skies. And if I'm using the 35GM I do tend to shoot wide open a lot of the time - Some landscapes I will stop down a little bit. But, I'm not shooting with the GM as much as I used to, so I'm not shooting at big apertures much anymore, so..... two things - I either don't care for wide open look anymore, or I love it even more when I do actually use it :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

I think depth one way or the other has to be used appropriately but it's nice to have all the options and with f2.5/f2.8 you don't. Some people wont care but for a % of pictures I do and I usually do take at least a few pictures wider than f2.5 when I have the ability.

I remembered this. An old article but worth a read.

theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

In Defense of Depth

From Russian Noir by Jason Eskenazi By John Kennerdell If there's a single received idea that fires up the imagination of my young photographer friends these days, it's that for "professional looking" photographs they should buy fast lenses and then...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com
 
woof woof said:
Ignoring light for a moment and just looking at depth and bokeh. For me obvious difference between F1.2 and smaller apertures kick in at about f2.2 or so. By f2.5/f2.8 the differences will be quite obvious.
Click to expand...
Of course it will also depend on the focal length, but anything smaller than f1.8 on lenses up to 85mm just don’t give enough subject isolation or nice bokeh for me. This is why I was surprised that the Fuji GFX is only f4, it’s going to give less subject isolation than the X100’s and they’re not great.

I know it’s not all about subject isolation but if I was choosing medium format it would be one of the primary considerations.
 
snerkler said:
Of course it will also depend on the focal length, but anything smaller than f1.8 on lenses up to 85mm just don’t give enough subject isolation or nice bokeh for me. This is why I was surprised that the Fuji GFX is only f4, it’s going to give less subject isolation than the X100’s and they’re not great.

I know it’s not all about subject isolation but if I was choosing medium format it would be one of the primary considerations.
Click to expand...

Don't search for Bryan Birks & some of his portraits.... :)

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CaUoQFpg0wh/
 
snerkler said:
Of course it will also depend on the focal length, but anything smaller than f1.8 on lenses up to 85mm just don’t give enough subject isolation or nice bokeh for me. This is why I was surprised that the Fuji GFX is only f4, it’s going to give less subject isolation than the X100’s and they’re not great.

I know it’s not all about subject isolation but if I was choosing medium format it would be one of the primary considerations.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I think if going for minimum depth FF usually gives more of that than the cheaper more mass market larger formats, as we see when we work out the FF equivalence for the lenses. I think the widest aperture they do is f1.7 on the 55mm, so if the crop factor is 0.79 for the Fuji in FF that'd be a 43mm f1.3.

Another way to look at it is the size of the aperture. Focal length/f=aperture in mm.
So.
Fuji MF, 55/1.7=32mm.
Sony FF 35/1.4=25mm, 35/1.2=29mm, 40/1.2=33mm, 50/1.2=41.6mm. So on FF 40 or 50mm f1.2 will give you more scope for reduced DoF.
Fuji X100 f2, 23/2=11.5mm.

I think the Hasselblad X2D looks lovely.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I may be wrong but I think if going for minimum depth FF usually gives more of that than the cheaper more mass market larger formats, as we see when we work out the FF equivalence for the lenses. I think the widest aperture they do is f1.7 on the 55mm, so if the crop factor is 0.79 for the Fuji in FF that'd be a 43mm f1.3.

Another way to look at it is the size of the aperture. Focal length/f=aperture in mm.
So.
Fuji MF, 55/1.7=32mm.
Sony FF 35/1.4=25mm, 35/1.2=29mm, 40/1.2=33mm, 50/1.2=41.6mm. So on FF 40 or 50mm f1.2 will give you more scope for reduced DoF.
Fuji X100 f2, 23/2=11.5mm.

I think the Hasselblad X2D looks lovely.
Click to expand...
I disagree that shallow DOF automatically makes it look cheap, there are a lot of variables and can look very high end if done correctly. Also, with wide aperture lenses you tend to get nicer fall off, better micro contrast (probably due to the extra cost/better manufacturing) and other things that make an image look extra special.

Looking at a large sample of images on Flickr the Fujifilm GFX100RF doesn't give images that look particularly special to me, I certainly don't automatically feel that they are shot with a larger format camera. I'm sure when you're processing and pixel peeping etc the detail is insane, but on normal viewing they look no more special to my eyes. Contrast this with the Hasselblad X2D, some of those images are stunning, however it's no coincidence to me that those images I particularly like are shot with and f2.5 lens, which will be something like f1.8 on FF.

That being said, even landscape and cityscape images shot with the X2D look very nice too, I can't put my finger on it but you can see that they are high quality and they have a higher degree of 3D rendering. I don't feel the same when looking at images with the Fuji. Of course, looking at sample images on Flickr isn't the best way to judge this, but without being able to try them myself it's the only option I have ;)
 
That being said, even landscape and cityscape images shot with the X2D look very nice too,
Click to expand...

Thing is, there’s probably some selection bias. If you have an X2D you’re probably half decent at photography or at least put some effort in, so the average x2d photo is probably better than the average lower end camera say?

Basically we all know the camera doesn’t _really_ matter…it’s the photographer. So that then justifies anything you fancy just cos you like it, as that’s the best reason. :)
 
the_accidental said:
Thing is, there’s probably some selection bias. If you have an X2D you’re probably half decent at photography or at least put some effort in, so the average x2d photo is probably better than the average lower end camera say?

Basically we all know the camera doesn’t _really_ matter…it’s the photographer. So that then justifies anything you fancy just cos you like it, as that’s the best reason. :)
Click to expand...
I don't know, I'd expect anyone who buys the Fujifilm is also someone who knows about photography yet to my eyes the Blad renders nicer than the Fuji.

With regards to your second sentence I am referring to purely the way the image is rendered and excluding processing the tog has little influence on this. In this situation I have no interest in acquiring either camera so there's little subjective bias (y)
 
pmac said:
Not sure if anyone has seen this as its quite old and though not really sony related I found it very interesting.
is the a7siii just really good?
been considering changing my a7iii for a a7rv.. but is it really worth it then?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Sej2TEes4&t=176s
Click to expand...

Depends on why you want the A7RV and if you need/want the extra resolution

Before the A7RV I had the A7iv.

Having higher resolution offers more cropping room and certainly helps will travelling lighter. It certainly helped me to travel with lighter lenses especially telephotos and still get decent shots I otherwise would miss

Also with A7RV you get the really nice EVF, 8 stops IBIS, latest AF and subject tracking algorithms (bar the A1ii), the fully articulated screen, focus bracketting. All of which i have enjoyed having probably more that the 61mp on its own.

The 61mp is more the cherry on the cake than the cake itself
 
Last edited:
pmac said:
Not sure if anyone has seen this as its quite old and though not really sony related I found it very interesting.
is the a7siii just really good?
been considering changing my a7iii for a a7rv.. but is it really worth it then?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Sej2TEes4&t=176s
Click to expand...
I’ve not watched the video but higher megapixels only really offer and advantage if you want/need to crop, if not then it can be a waste of money and file size.
 
nandbytes said:
Depends on why you want the A7RV and if you need/want the extra resolution

Before the A7RV I had the A7iv.

Having higher resolution offers more cropping room and certainly helps will travelling lighter. It certainly helped me to travel with lighter lenses especially telephotos and still get decent shots I otherwise would miss

Also with A7RV you get the really nice EVF, 8 stops IBIS, latest AF and subject tracking algorithms (bar the A1ii), the fully articulated screen, focus bracketting. All of which i have enjoyed having probably more that the 61mp on its own.

The 61mp is more the cherry on the cake than the cake itself
Click to expand...
Mainly the same things you have mentioned.
How have you found higher iso? I always found my d800 looked good with down sampling.
I will likely wait and see what is included in the a7v anyway.
 
pmac said:
Mainly the same things you have mentioned.
How have you found higher iso? I always found my d800 looked good with down sampling.
I will likely wait and see what is included in the a7v anyway.
Click to expand...
I have the A7RV, I don’t worry about iso I just use whatever is needed, the files are clean enough at high ISO imo. Plus with Denoise in Lightroom and topaz you can make them as clean as you want.
 
pmac said:
Mainly the same things you have mentioned.
How have you found higher iso? I always found my d800 looked good with down sampling.
I will likely wait and see what is included in the a7v anyway.
Click to expand...
For all intents and purposes there is no issue with higher ISOs.

The main issue with high res sensors is the slower readout speed (unless of course you buy a body with stacked sensor) while using electronic shutter. So you run into lots of rolling shutter or banding issues.

View: https://youtu.be/gAYXFwBsKQ0?si=euSw2dWYOrIqyfGb
 
One thing I forgot to mention, but this is not exclusive to high res sensors, is the on sensor PDAF pattern that becomes visable at really high ISO. I've only encountered it a handful of times but it is annoying.
 
With one thing and another and the weather I haven't been able to get out recently but I'm hoping to soon but maybe not this week.

A7III, Sony 40mm f2.5 at f5.6 and No.4 close up filter. The quick fall off is down to two things, being very close and the properties of the filter but this isn't a professional shot, it's just for fun :D

1-DSC00325.jpg

I have a few "divers" watches but to be honest I have no use for the rotating bezel and when they catch on something and move I just have to set them to the 12:00 position again. This one though has quite a compact bezel which so far I haven't been able to move by accident. I should have cleaned it but the fingerprints are added character :D
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
One thing I forgot to mention, but this is not exclusive to high res sensors, is the on sensor PDAF pattern that becomes visable at really high ISO. I've only encountered it a handful of times but it is annoying.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. At what magnification can you see them?
 
woof woof said:
That's interesting. At what magnification can you see them?
Click to expand...
I don't know tbh, I see something 'off' at normal viewing but then automatically zoom to 1:1, I've never zoomed in stages to see when the pattern becomes apparent. Off course it's more apparent at normal viewing sizes with a cropped image.
 
snerkler said:
I don't know tbh, I see something 'off' at normal viewing but then automatically zoom to 1:1, I've never zoomed in stages to see when the pattern becomes apparent. Off course it's more apparent at normal viewing sizes with a cropped image.
Click to expand...

1:1 would trigger my ocd but I'd probably try and get over it if I thought I wouldn't see it if viewing just normally or reasonably closely but to see it in normal viewing would trigger me more. I suppose the saving grace is that in only appears in specific instances in a percentage of pictures and not every time and is thus worth it for the benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top