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

dancook said:
it's probably the guys not playing golf who are most concerned, we took on a lodger six months ago to buffer ourselves - the income is now paying for new high BTU radiators downstairs so that we can be warm this winter, the underfloor heating is NOT going on.
Click to expand...

We're ok with no real money worries but just a seemingly endless list of expenses. The boiler repair is next. What joy :D At the mo I have to recharge it several times a day so I'm looking forward to that stopping, it'll be worth the money just for that.
 
Last edited:
Reading material...

The rumor site has a review of the 16-35mm f4 pz. Here's a direct link...

Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G - Review / Test Report

Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G - Review / Test Report
www.opticallimits.com www.opticallimits.com

"Overall, the Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G represents a significant update over the old Zeiss "predecessor" while keeping a relatively sane price level. Therefore - highly recommended!"

That's nice :D
 
woof woof said:
Reading material...

The rumor site has a review of the 16-35mm f4 pz. Here's a direct link...

Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G - Review / Test Report

Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G - Review / Test Report
www.opticallimits.com www.opticallimits.com

"Overall, the Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G represents a significant update over the old Zeiss "predecessor" while keeping a relatively sane price level. Therefore - highly recommended!"

That's nice :D
Click to expand...
I’d really like the PZ (depending how I like the power zoom) but can’t justify the cost.
 
I suppose they know better than me but I just can't see how this is possible...

After Sony, also Qualcomm believes the smartphones Image Quality will soon surpass the classic system cameras – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

Yup. You can throw a lot of processing at a smartphone picture but surely you can do the same with a camera picture and the camera has a much bigger sensor and I assume a better lens too?

Time will tell but will a picture created by a relatively small sensor and lens and soaked in processing be better than a picture created by a MFT, APS-C or FF camera and lens? I remain to be convinced.

Unless they're talking about straight out of camera jpegs?
 
woof woof said:
I suppose they know better than me but I just can't see how this is possible...

After Sony, also Qualcomm believes the smartphones Image Quality will soon surpass the classic system cameras – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

Yup. You can throw a lot of processing at a smartphone picture but surely you can do the same with a camera picture and the camera has a much bigger sensor and I assume a better lens too?

Time will tell but will a picture created by a relatively small sensor and lens and soaked in processing be better than a picture created by a MFT, APS-C or FF camera and lens? I remain to be convinced.

Unless they're talking about straight out of camera jpegs?
Click to expand...
In the set of quotes he mentions that the smartphone has a lot more processing power than the DSLR - which is only relevant if you are talking about jpegs from camera without additional PC based processing.
Of course, given Sony are already saying their latest Xperia smartphone benefits from their Alpha camera experience to improve it's photographs, they are probably in the best position of the main camera manufacturers to do the reverse, and put a smartphone level processing chip in a camera for post processing.
 
Faldrax said:
In the set of quotes he mentions that the smartphone has a lot more processing power than the DSLR - which is only relevant if you are talking about jpegs from camera without additional PC based processing.
Of course, given Sony are already saying their latest Xperia smartphone benefits from their Alpha camera experience to improve it's photographs, they are probably in the best position of the main camera manufacturers to do the reverse, and put a smartphone level processing chip in a camera for post processing.
Click to expand...

As I keep saying, Mrs WW and her mates are constantly swapping pictures and I've seen nothing from a smartphone or tablet yet that comes close to MFT never mind my creaking old A7. They can look very nice on a phone or tablet screen, stunning even, but look closer and there's disappointment waiting to be seen, IMO.
 
woof woof said:
As I keep saying, Mrs WW and her mates are constantly swapping pictures and I've seen nothing from a smartphone or tablet yet that comes close to MFT never mind my creaking old A7. They can look very nice on a phone or tablet screen, stunning even, but look closer and there's disappointment waiting to be seen, IMO.
Click to expand...
But a phone or tablet screen is where the majority of images are probably viewed, so from that perspective, if a device produces images that look good on phone / tablet, then it's "good enough".
 
Faldrax said:
But a phone or tablet screen is where the majority of images are probably viewed, so from that perspective, if a device produces images that look good on phone / tablet, then it's "good enough".
Click to expand...

Yup they're good enough for many people and small screen viewing but if we thought like that and that was all we wanted we'd be using them instead of our dedicated cameras and lenses.

I have tried to like taking pictures with phones but I just don't. As ever, good luck to those who do.
 
nandbytes said:
It is weathersealed, the older Zeiss wasn't I think.
Click to expand...
I’m getting old lol

There was a reason, can’t remember what it was then but had to be significant as I had it in the basket for days then found out something I didn’t like.
 
You guys may be tired of seeing my pictures of Staithes but...

I took four pictures from more or less the same spot just with slightly different framing and today I wondered if I could stich them. When I've tried to stitch individual pictures not taken to stitch before (settings not fixed) I've had light and dark variations in the sky which I couldn't fix but luckily this one seems to have worked ok for me and I have a slightly wider view and a slightly bigger file, 7,123 x 4,757.

18aM9CP.jpg


Oh dear. It seems to have lost some sharpness here. It looks better on my non forum screen.

Has anyone else had any success stitching individual pictures not taken to stitch?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
You guys may be tired of seeing my pictures of Staithes but...

I took four pictures from more or less the same spot just with slightly different framing and today I wondered if I could stich them. When I've tried to stitch individual pictures not taken to stitch before (settings not fixed) I've had light and dark variations in the sky which I couldn't fix but luckily this one seems to have worked ok for me and I have a slightly wider view and a slightly bigger file, 7,123 x 4,757.

18aM9CP.jpg


Oh dear. It seems to have lost some sharpness here. It looks better on my non forum screen.

Has anyone else had any success stitching individual pictures not taken to stitch?
Click to expand...

Looks good, needs a hint of straightening though - sorry first thing I noticed.

I used to stitch 8 shots with 3 bracketed exposures of each to create high resolution 360 degree images which was very intentional.

But I’ve never needed to randomly stitch a couple together that I didn’t shoot with the intention of stitching - as you say there’s normally a slight exposure difference
 
Last edited:
T_J_G said:
Looks good, needs a hint of straightening though - sorry first thing I noticed.

I used to stitch 8 shots with 3 bracketed exposures of each to create high resolution 360 degree images.
Click to expand...

Ah. I see. A teeny tiny amount. Done.

Processing these with the latest version of photoshop I did notice that there's a bit of curvature visible on the horizon but I don't know if this is purely the lens or a lens profile effect in this version as I've not noticed this before with this lens when using CS5.

Mrs wants one of these printing and framing, which is nice. I'd like to be there one day with nicer light and with the tide in as these things haven't coincided to date.
 
Last edited:
imattersuk said:
I’m getting old lol

There was a reason, can’t remember what it was then but had to be significant as I had it in the basket for days then found out something I didn’t like.
Click to expand...
Must be the power zoom surely?
 
snerkler said:
Must be the power zoom surely?
Click to expand...
Ok it was the lack of OSS as it would be a handy dual purpose lens for stills/video, being so small and light it would be perfect for handheld video with stabilisation but I guess they can't fit that into such a small package. I wasn't very impressed with the bokeh either.
 
snerkler said:
Both the PZ and Zeiss are “dust and moisture resistant” (y)
Click to expand...
Such an annoying term. "We've designed it with seals to stop water but we couldn't be bothered testing it so if it's damaged by water you've voided you're warranty"

Not like it's hard to design something that would be properly waterproof.
 
robj20 said:
Such an annoying term. "We've designed it with seals to stop water but we couldn't be bothered testing it so if it's damaged by water you've voided you're warranty"

Not like it's hard to design something that would be properly waterproof.
Click to expand...
It's not but it's hard to ensure people haven't dropped it in the ocean or into knee deep snow and then claiming they were only enjoying shower with it.

Then there is the matter of ensuring the right body and lens combination were being used.

I have used my Sony cameras in rain and snow with no issues. Just don't try washing it in the dishwasher :p
 
robj20 said:
Such an annoying term. "We've designed it with seals to stop water but we couldn't be bothered testing it so if it's damaged by water you've voided you're warranty"

Not like it's hard to design something that would be properly waterproof.
Click to expand...
I don't mind the term per se as they're clearly not waterproof, however I do wish there was a way to standardise the water resistance of camera equipment. AFAIK the only interchangeable lens camera manufacturer to specify water resistance is Olympus.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I don't mind the term per se as they're clearly not waterproof, however I do wish there was a way to test and standardise the water resistance of camera equipment. AFAIK the only interchangeable lens camera manufacturer to specify water resistance is Olympus.
Click to expand...
There is IP rating. The lower numbers can mean basically moisture resistant, all the way up to full waterproof.
Something like IPx3 would be nice to see, so that would basically be rain proof.

"IPX3 Spraying Water Testing:

Defined as water falling as a spray at any angle up to 60°.
The requirement is that the equipment under test (EUT), shall experience no harmful effects from the water being sprayed against the enclosure from any direction.
The test details include a test duration of at least five minutes, water volume of 0.7 liters per minute and pressure of 80-100 kN/m²."
 
robj20 said:
There is IP rating. The lower numbers can mean basically moisture resistant, all the way up to full waterproof.
Something like IPx3 would be nice to see, so that would basically be rain proof.

"IPX3 Spraying Water Testing:

Defined as water falling as a spray at any angle up to 60°.
The requirement is that the equipment under test (EUT), shall experience no harmful effects from the water being sprayed against the enclosure from any direction.
The test details include a test duration of at least five minutes, water volume of 0.7 liters per minute and pressure of 80-100 kN/m²."
Click to expand...
Sorry my wording wasn't great, as I know Olympus use the IP rating, what I meant is I wish there was a way to standardise it in the camera world in that if they state something has "weather resistance" or "dust and moisture resistance" they should state what that means with an IP rating (y)
 
snerkler said:
Sorry my wording wasn't great, as I know Olympus use the IP rating, what I meant is I wish there was a way to standardise it in the camera world in that if they state something has "weather resistance" or "dust and moisture resistance" they should state what that means with an IP rating (y)
Click to expand...
Agreed. I partly got the original A7R for its "weather proof" annoyingly they don't removed that from all material.
My A7C says something along the lines of weather resistant, but what the hell does that mean when they don't warranty against water ingress. Basically it's pot luck and all on my head.
 
robj20 said:
Agreed. I partly got the original A7R for its "weather proof" annoyingly they don't removed that from all material.
My A7C says something along the lines of weather resistant, but what the hell does that mean when they don't warranty against water ingress. Basically it's pot luck and all on my head.
Click to expand...
It's rare that I'll shoot in the rain, but I have been caught out in the rain on several occasions, once it what like monsoon weather in Venice but luckily at that time I had the Em5-II with 12-40mm pro so had no concerns, had that been my Sony gear I wouldn't have been so relaxed as I have no idea what that can take :rolleyes:
 
snerkler said:
It's rare that I'll shoot in the rain, but I have been caught out in the rain on several occasions, once it what like monsoon weather in Venice but luckily at that time I had the Em5-II with 12-40mm pro so had no concerns, had that been my Sony gear I wouldn't have been so relaxed as I have no idea what that can take :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Exactly its a lot of money and I'm not willing to risk it.
 
snerkler said:
It's rare that I'll shoot in the rain, but I have been caught out in the rain on several occasions, once it what like monsoon weather in Venice but luckily at that time I had the Em5-II with 12-40mm pro so had no concerns, had that been my Sony gear I wouldn't have been so relaxed as I have no idea what that can take :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
robj20 said:
Exactly its a lot of money and I'm not willing to risk it.
Click to expand...
Get insurance ;)
I have used my A7RIV, A7C and A1 in downpour and snow storm. The current line of Sony bodies and G/GM lenses are well sealed. But regardless of the manufacturer water damage is on your heads.

Even posted a picture couple years back.... Let me see....
IMG_20210124_114103.jpg
 
nandbytes said:
Get insurance ;)
I have used my A7RIV, A7C and A1 in downpour and snow storm. The current line of Sony bodies and G/GM lenses are well sealed. But regardless of the manufacturer water damage is on your heads.

Even posted a picture couple years back.... Let me see....
View attachment 369002
Click to expand...
Aren't you a professional though? I'm not about to insure my camera when I only use it a couple of times a week.

So you fully trust your A7C in the rain? Guessing only lenses with the seal on the mount should be used.

"Well sealed and water damage on your head" is exactly my problem. They can't be confident in the sealing then.
 
Last edited:
robj20 said:
Aren't you a professional though? I'm not about to insure my camera when I only use it a couple of times a week.

So you fully trust your A7C in the rain? Guessing only lenses with the seal on the mount should be used.
Click to expand...
I am not a professional, not a full time one anyway. I have dabbled every now and then the the experience.
I just own expensive gear that I like to use. No point in keeping it at home 364 days in the year because of the UK weather is s***. In fact I have got some nice shots in rain and snow.

Yep A7C will do fine as long as you are using a sealed lens. I wouldn't trust a lenses that's only sealed at the mount. I'd want sealing around all moving parts like focus ring etc. I also don't like water getting on my front element so in such situations I have the UV filter on which is the main reason I use UV fillers. And sometimes you have to constantly wipe the front which would really suck it it was the lens front element instead of the filter.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Get insurance ;)
I have used my A7RIV, A7C and A1 in downpour and snow storm. The current line of Sony bodies and G/GM lenses are well sealed. But regardless of the manufacturer water damage is on your heads.

Even posted a picture couple years back.... Let me see....
View attachment 369002
Click to expand...
My camera gear is on the house insurance, but I still like to look after it and would prefer for it not to get damaged. I have a little more trust in my GM lenses, but even then I’d probably choose not to use them if it’s bouncing down. I do have rain covers but only used them twice, once at Silverstone and once at Donington.
 
leaky5 said:
Lol my son once queried a failed next day delivery.
They said “yes it will be next day from when we dispatch it, we have not dispatched it yet”
Click to expand...

Back in my computer days one company claimed an 24h response time and when questioned they admitted that they only worked 8h a day so 24h response meant they'd get there withing 3 days. How we laughed.
 
woof woof said:
Has anyone else had any success stitching individual pictures not taken to stitch?
Click to expand...

I do it all the time. I'm pretty casual about my stitched panos TBH and I think get away with it most of the time...

For example, this was just pulled together when I realised after the event during PP that I had taken some images that would fit with each other (Sony A73 + Contax C/Y Distagon 25mm f/2.8 in case anyone's interested and to keep it on topic)


Three Cities by Rob Telford, on Flickr

If I'm deliberately setting out to put them together I will usually pop the camera into manual exposure mode to ensure consistency across the set of images (the one above was not) but I have never bothered with pano heads and nodal alignments and whatnot.

I've been hacking such things for many years - this was two frames of HP5 when an FD 50mm f/1.8 was the only lens I owned and I needed to go wider back in 1982.

I had a couple of small prints that I could bring together occasionally when I got them out of the drawer, but it took 28 years before they finally were stitched properly using digital tools. :)


TL4 by Rob Telford, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
My camera gear is on the house insurance, but I still like to look after it and would prefer for it not to get damaged. I have a little more trust in my GM lenses, but even then I’d probably choose not to use them if it’s bouncing down. I do have rain covers but only used them twice, once at Silverstone and once at Donington.
Click to expand...
I look after my gear too and don't want it damaged. But if you can't use it half the time then what's the point. I guess you have cheaper gear to use when it's raining but in the end whether you need to claim for £500 Oly or £5000 Sony, the process and annoyance is about the same.

It's also partly the reason for me selling the drone. Family get in the way half the time and other half the weather ruins it. Getting insurance for drones is annoying and very complicated to understand what they actually cover. So I just gave up lol
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Canon are struggling to shift the R3 as I've just had an email saying there's a £600 trade in bonus at Wex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top