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

More photos from my travel that never seen the light of day before.

ortDxo4.jpg


lSNJZu0.jpg


DfZMtZR.jpg



gby82sA.jpg
 
Hmmm. One thing I noticed with the 50mm f1.1 is that even at 1/8,000 shots can be over exposed. I think Sony need to up the shutter speed of only with the electronic shutter. Do any A7x cameras shoot faster than 1/8,000 with the electronic shutter?
 
woof woof said:
Hmmm. One thing I noticed with the 50mm f1.1 is that even at 1/8,000 shots can be over exposed. I think Sony need to up the shutter speed of only with the electronic shutter. Do any A7x cameras shoot faster than 1/8,000 with the electronic shutter?
Click to expand...
Looking at the specs on the Sony site the max shutter speed of the A7iv is only 1/8000 too which surprises me, not sure why they can’t do faster with the electronic shutter, I guess it’s readout speed? My A9II can do 1/32000, not sure about the A1.
 
The Voigtlander 50mm f1 in M mount gets good reviews and it's coming to Nikon Z mount...

www.dpreview.com

Cosina's Voigtländer 50mm F1 Aspherical lens will soon be available with a native Nikon Z-mount

The new ultrafast prime for Nikon Z-mount cameras is a re-worked version of Cosina's existing Voigtländer 50mm F1 Aspherical lens for Leica M-mount cameras.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com

Voigtlander have done a number of lenses in Sony mount so I wonder why they've chosen Z as their first non M for this one? Maybe a Sony mount will follow at some point.
 
snerkler said:
Looking at the specs on the Sony site the max shutter speed of the A7iv is only 1/8000 too which surprises me, not sure why they can’t do faster with the electronic shutter, I guess it’s readout speed? My A9II can do 1/32000, not sure about the A1.
Click to expand...

It does seem odd. My Panasonic MFT cameras go higher than 1/8,000, 16,000 I think, which is needed as the base ISO is 200.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It does seem odd. My Panasonic MFT cameras go higher than 1/8,000, 16,000 I think, which is needed as the base ISO is 200.
Click to expand...
My EM1 Mark II went up to 1/32000, but I think this had a faster than average readout time as rolling shutter was minimal, although still slightly apparent at times. You can always use the low ISO settings, I don't think there's much penalty at all in DR. I often use it when doing slow shutter pans, even with a 4 stop filter it still needs the low ISOs.
 
snerkler said:
My EM1 Mark II went up to 1/32000, but I think this had a faster than average readout time as rolling shutter was minimal, although still slightly apparent at times. You can always use the low ISO settings, I don't think there's much penalty at all in DR. I often use it when doing slow shutter pans, even with a 4 stop filter it still needs the low ISOs.
Click to expand...

I've never tried the lower than native ISO settings. I suppose I should give them a go.
 
snerkler said:
This is great. Still yet to see one despite going to so many places they’ve been spotted :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I spent all of yesterday looking for one on the River Kelvin with no luck, and it wasn't the first time I'd been looking for one there either - but it was knowledge from a photographer I got speaking to when taking photos of the Waxwings which got me the intel on where to go, and when :)
 
Last edited:
Is anybody using PS2022/2023?

I'm struggling with vignetting correction when processing raws. This was easy in CS5 but seems very difficult to impossible with the latest version. I must be doing something wrong but I just don't know what.
 
woof woof said:
Is anybody using PS2022/2023?

I'm struggling with vignetting correction when processing raws. This was easy in CS5 but seems very difficult to impossible with the latest version. I must be doing something wrong but I just don't know what.
Click to expand...
Can't help I'm afraid, always import to lightroom before sending to PS, do you use camera raw first as it's there under "optics"?
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Can't help I'm afraid, always import to lightroom before sending to PS, do you use camera raw first as it's there under "optics"?
Click to expand...

Yes. I use camera raw.

I've been struggling with the various versions of PS but in reality I think I'm just expecting too much from these Chinese lenses and not being able to get the result I want is causing my frustration with PS. This is with the Chinese 50mm f2 I bought a while back and the and f1.1 I got recently. They both have just about off the scale vignetting at some apertures and focus distances and mushy and uneven performance across the frame into the corners. I suppose I should just accept that with these possibly both poorly designed and made lenses with possibly little QC too the results are never going to be as even as with lenses from the mainstream manufacturers.

Anyway. I was going to send the 50mm f1.1 back but I might just keep it and not expect the top left to be the same as the bottom right when looking closely :D

A reworked version of a picture I posted the other day.

3Ss2VG8.jpg


And this is another f1.1 picture.

06UfPfj.jpg


I know a lot of people wouldn't go near lenses of this quality but it's a relatively cheap hobby and distraction for me :D
 
Last edited:
Mr Ding 50mm f1.1 at f1.1.

f1.1 CA test but it's "corrected" here.

Qp862se.jpg


f1.1. With the helicoid extended but not at MFD.

eoJhnC4.jpg


Just straight f1.1. Focus on the people using peaking.

NYY7zUX.jpg


One at f5.6 at which I think it's ok.

r1NhKXo.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not sure how well this will show on here but I've been really impressed with Topaz Sharpen with missed focus shots and have found that it can sometimes rescue shots that would have otherwise ended up in the bin. Here's one today (100% crop), completely user error as I wasn't quick enough and missed the focus completely (on the right) and then showing how it was rescued (left)


Screenshot 2023-02-13 at 16.44.07 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
Not sure how well this will show on here but I've been really impressed with Topaz Sharpen with missed focus shots and have found that it can sometimes rescue shots that would have otherwise ended up in the bin. Here's one today (100% crop), completely user error as I wasn't quick enough and missed the focus completely (on the right) and then showing how it was rescued (left)


Screenshot 2023-02-13 at 16.44.07 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That's astounding!! I've always had Topaz in the back of my mind as something I might like to purchase. Do you have the full suite?
 
gilbouk said:
That's astounding!! I've always had Topaz in the back of my mind as something I might like to purchase. Do you have the full suite?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I have Denoise, Sharpen and Gigapixel, worth the investment for me.
 
snerkler said:
Not sure how well this will show on here but I've been really impressed with Topaz Sharpen with missed focus shots and have found that it can sometimes rescue shots that would have otherwise ended up in the bin. Here's one today (100% crop), completely user error as I wasn't quick enough and missed the focus completely (on the right) and then showing how it was rescued (left)


Screenshot 2023-02-13 at 16.44.07 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I have had Topaz for years, as soon as Sharpen came out I jumped to get it so along with Denoise they do me a treat.
 
I wonder why we're seeing the likes of the 20-70mm f4, 20-40mm 2.8 and possibly a 20-50mm f2 these days?

Could it be that companies are more more willing to rely on in camera corrections or lens profiles or that they're pushing the envelope to grab sales in a market place decimated by smartphones or a combination of both?

Whatever the reason, a wide to short tele relatively wide aperture zoom coupled with a wide aperture prime for low light and DoF reasons could be enough for a lot of peoples needs.
 
woof woof said:
I wonder why we're seeing the likes of the 20-70mm f4, 20-40mm 2.8 and possibly a 20-50mm f2 these days?

Could it be that companies are more more willing to rely on in camera corrections or lens profiles or that they're pushing the envelope to grab sales in a market place decimated by smartphones or a combination of both?

Whatever the reason, a wide to short tele relatively wide aperture zoom coupled with a wide aperture prime for low light and DoF reasons could be enough for a lot of peoples needs.
Click to expand...
Probably just evolution, standard zooms used to start at 28mm, then 24mm, now we’ll likely see more at 20mm and so on. I’m guessing there’s a constant need to keep the market fresh, and then with new tech etc it allows them to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top