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

snerkler said:
Just booked on this, not far from me and if it’s not much cop it’s only cost me £25. Hopefully I can try out the 400mm f2.8.

London Camera Exchange | Events |Birds of Prey Photography with Luke Massey & Sony

London Camera Exchange | Events | Birds of Prey Photography with Luke Massey & Sony
www.lcegroup.co.uk
Click to expand...
Looks good - LCE do a range of different such days all round the country, I've often thought about going to one, but never gone (usually due to lack of available holiday to take time off work).
Let us know how it goes.
 
snerkler said:
From my experience Sony's highlight recovery is not as good as other brands, something I'm slightly disappointed in tbh. That being said, the shadow recovery is so good that in a situation like this I find it best to underexpose slightly and recover in post. The more recent Nikons I've used seem to do this by default, they underexpose a little from my experience (D850 onwards).

The A9ii struggles to find the eyes of our dog, I've mentioned this a few times and have been trying to figure out why. Our dog has dark eyes and a dark face and thought it might be this, however your dog's face doesn't have a dark face so maybe it's not this. I went to Yorkshire Wildlife Park a couple of weeks ago and found animal eye AF worked better on a number of their animals that our dog :banghead:

With regards to yours it's not something daft like you had it set to human eyes rather than animal was it? I've done that before :LOL:
Click to expand...

I usually have the EV dial set to -1 EV but I had reset it back to 0. Wish I hadn't now but I'll play around a bit more. There's just something about the image quality that is bugging me but I can't quite put my finger on it. It just feels too 'digital' if that makes any sense? The A7x that I see look more film like, they have a more creamy look to the colours and gradients, but the A9 just seems a little harsh or something.

I've got it set to Animal Eye, was the first thing I did. Tried reverting back to Human but it would never lock on, whereas with Animal it will sometimes grab the eye.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
I usually have the EV dial set to -1 EV but I had reset it back to 0. Wish I hadn't now but I'll play around a bit more. There's just something about the image quality that is bugging me but I can't quite put my finger on it. It just feels too 'digital' if that makes any sense? The A7x that I see look more film like, they have a more creamy look to the colours and gradients, but the A9 just seems a little harsh or something.

I've got it set to Animal Eye, was the first thing I did. Tried reverting back to Human but it would never lock on, whereas with Animal it will sometimes grab the eye.
Click to expand...
I've not noticed anything like that with the difference Sony sensors, the only thing I've seen is that the colour science has improved over the years. That being said I still don't like Sony colour profiles and use Color Fidelity instead.
 
snerkler said:
I've not noticed anything like that with the difference Sony sensors, the only thing I've seen is that the colour science has improved over the years. That being said I still don't like Sony colour profiles and use Color Fidelity instead.
Click to expand...

I never really thought about the colour profile, I currently use important edit presets and then tweak. Just had a look at your post here and it's quite obvious the differences. I'm going to try -1 EV first and then see what is what. Thanks.
 
A couple from today. A7 and Sony 35mm f1.8.

Surrounded by flowers.

6bQRkEJ.jpg


Flags galore. I don't know what those blue flags are though. This was 3:2 portrait orientation but to lessen perspective distortion I had to include too much foreground so it's cropped 4:3 here.

ayzTmQg.jpg
 
gman said:
New addition; he's already done a big jobby in my passenger footwell on the A9 with nowhere to pull over for ages. Was horrific. The smell. My eyes burning.

I'm still not sure I'm digging the A9. Dynamic range feels poor, very difficult to recover the white fur in this. AF is struggling to detect his eye but I'll keep at it. If it's just going to be stationary photos then I may as well swap for an A7Riv?


View attachment 362251
Click to expand...

I usually use the A7 in spot meter mode, and use the spot on the brightest part of the scene (with some care) then recover from there.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I usually use the A7 in spot meter mode, and use the spot on the brightest part of the scene (with some care) then recover from there.
Click to expand...
Interesting, would it not be easier to just use highlight priority metering?
 
snerkler said:
Interesting, would it not be easier to just use highlight priority metering?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I'm a creature of habit. The evf gives me the information I need to get a useful exposure. When I had Nikon I'd normally expose 1 stop under to keep highlights - moving to Sony it was astonishing how much good detail would out of a black shadow.
 
My initial thoughts on the Samyang 135mm 1.8

Had this a few days now but only managed to get it on the camera this evening as recovering from covid. First impressions are it's a solid piece of kit, built well and feels more expensive than it is. It feels quite big and heavy but I'm used to having an 85mm as my biggest lens.

The autofocus is quick and accurate. I don't think it missed a single shot whilst I took a few images. Be interesting to see how it fairs in long term use. But with that said I'm not sure where it sits with the my work kit (lot to carry around for occasional use) so it may be just a lens used for images of the kids.

Amelia by Tim G, on Flickr

Amelia full length by Tim G, on Flickr
 
T_J_G said:
My initial thoughts on the Samyang 135mm 1.8

Had this a few days now but only managed to get it on the camera this evening as recovering from covid. First impressions are it's a solid piece of kit, built well and feels more expensive than it is. It feels quite big and heavy but I'm used to having an 85mm as my biggest lens.

The autofocus is quick and accurate. I don't think it missed a single shot whilst I took a few images. Be interesting to see how it fairs in long term use. But with that said I'm not sure where it sits with the my work kit (lot to carry around for occasional use) so it may be just a lens used for images of the kids.
Click to expand...

Lovely pictures :D

I very rarely use anything longer than 50mm but I think 135mm is useful for people pictures and for scenic pictures too. I wont try and dig any out now but I have taken some scenic pictures I really like with 85 and 135mm lenses.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I usually use the A7 in spot meter mode, and use the spot on the brightest part of the scene (with some care) then recover from there.
Click to expand...

Could that be a bit tricky when dealing with a fast puppy?

But all moot now, we had to give the puppy back this evening after a puppy check at the vet revealed a known health issue was far worse than stated and would develop to where we would not be able to responsibly look after him. Poor thing is going to have some tough battles ahead. Absolutely gutted.
 
gman said:
Could that be a bit tricky when dealing with a fast puppy?

But all moot now, we had to give the puppy back this evening after a puppy check at the vet revealed a known health issue was far worse than stated and would develop to where we would not be able to responsibly look after him. Poor thing is going to have some tough battles ahead. Absolutely gutted.
Click to expand...
Very sorry to hear this, I hope you're OK and I hope the puppy wins the battle against their health issues.
 
gman said:
Could that be a bit tricky when dealing with a fast puppy?

But all moot now, we had to give the puppy back this evening after a puppy check at the vet revealed a known health issue was far worse than stated and would develop to where we would not be able to responsibly look after him. Poor thing is going to have some tough battles ahead. Absolutely gutted.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that, must be very tough (and worse for the puppy).
 
gman said:
Could that be a bit tricky when dealing with a fast puppy?

But all moot now, we had to give the puppy back this evening after a puppy check at the vet revealed a known health issue was far worse than stated and would develop to where we would not be able to responsibly look after him. Poor thing is going to have some tough battles ahead. Absolutely gutted.
Click to expand...

Gosh that's hard.

At least you tried to give the puppy a good home and have probably done the right thing for him now.
 
Thanks, it had only been a week fortunately, although my wife had been pretty intense with him all week day and night to train etc, so it's hit her and my daughter (who played every day with him) harder. It's basically a huge amount of specialist and very expensive dental work that could be required throughout his life and the specialist is a long journey away (local vet wouldn't be able to do it so no money driven motive). It also wouldn't be covered by insurance.

There is a small chance that things would naturally work out, although after researching we can't see how and it is considering a condition which worsens over time and not improves. As much as I would have loved to keep him to make sure he gets all the treatment and love he needs, we just aren't equipped to deal with this and despite the heartbreak we had to do what was best for the puppy. The Kennel Club breeder had no hesitation either with having him returned for the same reason. It's a hereditary condition that she is experienced with and can probably take the chance at seeing what happens naturally at first. I think on this occasion her vet may have underestimated it but we will now never know.
 
snerkler said:
My copy was very good indeed imo, only just worse than the 24-105mm when pixel peeping. In fact I often regret getting rid of it as I preferred the size and weight over the 24-105mm.

I've uploaded some of my images to dropbox for you, all taken with the 24-70mm for you to look for yourself as we all have different standards, however for me it's very good and considerably better than the 16-35mm f4. They're not the greatest photos by any stretch as most are just 'grab shots' whilst out walking the dog, however they'll show what you need to see. Some are shot with the A7RIV too and I still think they stand up well even on this 61mp camera.

Dropbox - File Deleted - Simplify your life

www.dropbox.com www.dropbox.com


It is possible to get some background blur,..... in the right scenario :LOL:

Sandtrooper Selfie by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Thanks, very helpful. Looks like it’s not as bad as a search on the net would have you believe, DxOmark also rate it better than the old A mount 24-70 f2.8. Just wondering if I’d miss that extra stop!
 
Pandster1981 said:
Thanks, very helpful. Looks like it’s not as bad as a search on the net would have you believe, DxOmark also rate it better than the old A mount 24-70 f2.8. Just wondering if I’d miss that extra stop!
Click to expand...
In my experience. Always go for the extra stop.
There’s no doubt that image quality from any F4 lens is good enough. But sometimes you just need to shoot with a lower ISO. A stop is a huge difference.
 
Pandster1981 said:
Thanks, very helpful. Looks like it’s not as bad as a search on the net would have you believe, DxOmark also rate it better than the old A mount 24-70 f2.8. Just wondering if I’d miss that extra stop!
Click to expand...
Unlike Trevor I'm not that concerned about the extra stop of ISO as modern cameras are very good at handling high ISO's, plus there's software like Topaz denoise that can give great results, however f2.8 lenses will give better subject isolation, and most of the time nicer bokeh than their f4 counterparts.
 
snerkler said:
Unlike Trevor I'm not that concerned about the extra stop of ISO as modern cameras are very good at handling high ISO's, plus there's software like Topaz denoise that can give great results, however f2.8 lenses will give better subject isolation, and most of the time nicer bokeh than their f4 counterparts.
Click to expand...
Exactly - I’m not too worried about the ISO aspect, it’s more the subject isolation and bokeh, at the relatively short focal lengths the 2.8 to 4 difference is quite large
 
Pandster1981 said:
Exactly - I’m not too worried about the ISO aspect, it’s more the subject isolation and bokeh, at the relatively short focal lengths the 2.8 to 4 difference is quite large
Click to expand...

The only advantages I can see for smaller aperture lenses is that they can be smaller and cheaper. I have some primes which are f2.8 and smaller and they can be lovely things if you don't need wider apertures for reasons of light or DoF.
 
Last edited:
Pandster1981 said:
Exactly - I’m not too worried about the ISO aspect, it’s more the subject isolation and bokeh, at the relatively short focal lengths the 2.8 to 4 difference is quite large
Click to expand...

Having seen un-processed files from a slightly earlier copy of the 24-70 f4, if it were a £100 kit lens then it would be fine, but not at the asking price. Not all copies are BAD, but it should be great and smply isn't. I do have a 24-105 as a travel lens, and that was worth the extra. Subject separation will certainlt be nicer with a wider aperture too.
 
imattersuk said:
Can't really see the point in a Tamron version, the Sony 24-105 f4 is brilliant, reasonably priced and I can't see them getting close to it, the Sony has OSS too.
Click to expand...

If they could make it smaller, lighter and £100 cheaper they would probably sell a lot. It's still quite expensive for an f4 zoom and it's quite bulky and heavy - these seems to be the main complaints with that lens.
 
ancient_mariner said:
If they could make it smaller, lighter and £100 cheaper they would probably sell a lot. It's still quite expensive for an f4 zoom and it's quite bulky and heavy - these seems to be the main complaints with that lens.
Click to expand...
I'd want more than a £100 saving if it doesn't have OSS. Take your point about weight saving but every Tamron i've tried that's light feels cheap and nasty compared to Sony build quality.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Having seen un-processed files from a slightly earlier copy of the 24-70 f4, if it were a £100 kit lens then it would be fine, but not at the asking price. Not all copies are BAD, but it should be great and smply isn't. I do have a 24-105 as a travel lens, and that was worth the extra. Subject separation will certainlt be nicer with a wider aperture too.
Click to expand...
Did you see anything wrong with my examples? I honestly can't see much wrong with it even when shot on the A7RIV :thinking:

I'll see if I can dig out the comparison I did vs the 24-105mm as there wasn't that much in it IIRC.
 
ancient_mariner said:
If they could make it smaller, lighter and £100 cheaper they would probably sell a lot. It's still quite expensive for an f4 zoom and it's quite bulky and heavy - these seems to be the main complaints with that lens.
Click to expand...
That's my biggest gripe with it and why I've not 'bonded' with it, the 24-70mm feels much better on the camera imo. No doubting the 24-105mm is very good optically though.
imattersuk said:
I'd want more than a £100 saving if it doesn't have OSS. Take your point about weight saving but every Tamron i've tried that's light feels cheap and nasty compared to Sony build quality.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends which tamron and which Sony you're comparing. The Tamron 70-180mm has good build quality imo and equals some Sonys, however of course it's not in the same league as Sony's 70-200mm's.
 
snerkler said:
Did you see anything wrong with my examples? I honestly can't see much wrong with it even when shot on the A7RIV :thinking:

I'll see if I can dig out the comparison I did vs the 24-105mm as there wasn't that much in it IIRC.
Click to expand...

I did, they had soft corners from what I remember, though nothing like as bad as the previous example I'd seen (which really was no better than the kit lens, even failing to sharpen up when stopped down).
 
ancient_mariner said:
I did, they had soft corners from what I remember, though nothing like as bad as the previous example I'd seen (which really was no better than the kit lens, even failing to sharpen up when stopped down).
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks. Obviously the corners are soft compared to the centre but when I compare it to the corner of other lenses I've owned/currently own they stand up well imo. I guess we all see things differently and have different 'standards'. The 24-70mm f4 is currently available for a touch over £600 at present and if you get a good copy I'd say it's worth it (with today's current crazy prices). YMMV (y)
 
snerkler said:
Interesting, thanks. Obviously the corners are soft compared to the centre but when I compare it to the corner of other lenses I've owned/currently own they stand up well imo. I guess we all see things differently and have different 'standards'. The 24-70mm f4 is currently available for a touch over £600 at present and if you get a good copy I'd say it's worth it (with today's current crazy prices). YMMV (y)
Click to expand...

I remember the guys at Luminous Lansdscape having kittens over this lens, they really liked it. I also remember comments from the time that although it was better than the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 it didn't leave that lens far enough behind.
 
woof woof said:
I remember the guys at Luminous Lansdscape having kittens over this lens, they really liked it. I also remember comments from the time that although it was better than the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 it didn't leave that lens far enough behind.
Click to expand...
The 28-70mm isn’t that bad though, especially when stopped down.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I did, they had soft corners from what I remember, though nothing like as bad as the previous example I'd seen (which really was no better than the kit lens, even failing to sharpen up when stopped down).
Click to expand...
I may have to concede that there is more difference between the 24-70mm and 24-105mm than I recall. This is a comparison of the corners of a shot of my back garden. There is a noticeable difference, although these crops are at 200% which obviously magnifies it more than usual. The 24-70mm is still better than a great number of other wide angles I've used though.


Screenshot 2022-03-30 at 09.30.14 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
The 24-70mm is still better than a great number of other wide angles I've used though.
Click to expand...

I've certainly used worse lenses than that too, but I just feel like a lens at that price point (especially 3 1/2 years ago when I considered it) should not have significant vices. With the Nikon 28-105 that I had, stopping down to f11 just about made it sharp from corner to corner, and it cost me about £100 used in excellent condition. I wasn't going to spend that kind of money to get performance that was actually slightly worse.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I've certainly used worse lenses than that too, but I just feel like a lens at that price point (especially 3 1/2 years ago when I considered it) should not have significant vices. With the Nikon 28-105 that I had, stopping down to f11 just about made it sharp from corner to corner, and it cost me about £100 used in excellent condition. I wasn't going to spend that kind of money to get performance that was actually slightly worse.
Click to expand...
I had that Nikon lens too, mine wasn’t as good as the FE 24-70mm. Mind you it appears (not for the first time) my memory’s not the best so maybe I need review my images taken with the 28-105mm :thinking: :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top