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

JohnMcL7 said:
I'm surprised at some of the card sizes mentioned here, I use a 256GB and 128GB in the A9 as it can burn through memory cards alarmingly quickly, I know there's the too many eggs in one basket but I've lost more photos to running out of space unexpectedly compared to SD cards failing.
Click to expand...

I sometimes go out for a sunrise or walk and only come away with maybe 5-50 images average.

It's more the odd night sky timelapse stuff and long weekends away where image might stack up a bit more.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I'm surprised at some of the card sizes mentioned here, I use a 256GB and 128GB in the A9 as it can burn through memory cards alarmingly quickly, I know there's the too many eggs in one basket but I've lost more photos to running out of space unexpectedly compared to SD cards failing.
Click to expand...
You’re going some filling a 256GB card :eek: I went mad at Silverstone one time and shot around 4000 photos IIRC (won’t be making that mistake again) but think I only just filled a 128GB card.
 
A couple of pics from this morning's dog walk. Very cold and dull, constantly with light snow in the air although unfortunately never settled.


A9_00221 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A9_00226 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I've just seen a post on the Sony Alpha FB page about someone's camera struggling in portrait orientation compared to landscape orientation when shooting low light and one thought that I had could be due to certain AF points being line type rather than cross type however this never seems to be discussed these days and so it got me wondering if this 'system' is even still used with mirrorless cameras?

So how do mirrorless AF systems work these days? Obviously we still have phase detect and contrast detect but when do they use phase and when so they use contrast detect, and do they still use cross type vs line type or have the implemented something new?
 
snerkler said:
I've just seen a post on the Sony Alpha FB page about someone's camera struggling in portrait orientation compared to landscape orientation when shooting low light and one thought that I had could be due to certain AF points being line type rather than cross type however this never seems to be discussed these days and so it got me wondering if this 'system' is even still used with mirrorless cameras?

So how do mirrorless AF systems work these days? Obviously we still have phase detect and contrast detect but when do they use phase and when so they use contrast detect, and do they still use cross type vs line type or have the implemented something new?
Click to expand...
It's something I've wondered as well - I know with my ancient A900's the central cross-type is significantly better than the line type AF points.
 
gman said:
That's a really nice photo, the tones, deep contrast and colours are spot on for me. The A7iv and 200-600mm seem like a winning combination!
Click to expand...
Thanks @gman, it's a combo that really has reignited my enjoyment of bird photography.

DSC08134 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
I've just seen a post on the Sony Alpha FB page about someone's camera struggling in portrait orientation compared to landscape orientation when shooting low light and one thought that I had could be due to certain AF points being line type rather than cross type however this never seems to be discussed these days and so it got me wondering if this 'system' is even still used with mirrorless cameras?

So how do mirrorless AF systems work these days? Obviously we still have phase detect and contrast detect but when do they use phase and when so they use contrast detect, and do they still use cross type vs line type or have the implemented something new?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the cameras will use PDAF to work out how far out of focus the image is then jump the focus to that point and let the CDAF get the final lock. One of the big weaknesses of CDAF is that it can't tell how out of focus the image is so it needs to move through the whole focus range monitoring if the image is getting sharper or not and when it doesn't, it knows it's past the in focus point and needs to move back to it. Therefore PDAF can help hugely in getting the CDAF system into the right range.

The cross vs line is an interesting question and I can't find any good answer to it, in any explanations I can see of the on sensor PDAF system it shows the sensors as a vertical line but also there's mentions of various different techniques to implement it so I'm not sure how that works in practice.
 
snerkler said:
I've just seen a post on the Sony Alpha FB page about someone's camera struggling in portrait orientation compared to landscape orientation when shooting low light and one thought that I had could be due to certain AF points being line type rather than cross type however this never seems to be discussed these days and so it got me wondering if this 'system' is even still used with mirrorless cameras?

So how do mirrorless AF systems work these days? Obviously we still have phase detect and contrast detect but when do they use phase and when so they use contrast detect, and do they still use cross type vs line type or have the implemented something new?
Click to expand...

I've seen failure to lock on in one orientation and then success in the other but I can't remember which way round.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
As I understand it, the cameras will use PDAF to work out how far out of focus the image is then jump the focus to that point and let the CDAF get the final lock. One of the big weaknesses of CDAF is that it can't tell how out of focus the image is so it needs to move through the whole focus range monitoring if the image is getting sharper or not and when it doesn't, it knows it's past the in focus point and needs to move back to it. Therefore PDAF can help hugely in getting the CDAF system into the right range.

The cross vs line is an interesting question and I can't find any good answer to it, in any explanations I can see of the on sensor PDAF system it shows the sensors as a vertical line but also there's mentions of various different techniques to implement it so I'm not sure how that works in practice.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that’s how I’ve understood PDAF and CDAF in the past but there seems so little info these days. I’m guessing some of it are closely guarded secrets ;)
 
mav said:
how long do sony normally take to deposit there cashbacks , it just on 28 days now and not recieved it yet
Click to expand...
It usually says in the T's and C's IIRC, I don't think mine took that long though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mav
So after David @Mr Perceptive mentioned that he noticed my shots with the Samyang 50mm f1.4 FE II were soft I decided to test it against the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN. I've never thought it particularly soft when processing and never thought that I needed to add extra sharpening and I believe it's always easier to see for yourself when processing than seeing photos online that might have had compression etc added. However tests show that there are a couple of areas of weaknesses, which doesn't surprise me although corners are worse than I was expecting.

Both shot using a tripod and at f1.4, the Samyang is closer to the chart to fill the frame obviously so I don't know if this will have any influence on the test. Also, framing isn't an exact match as I filled the frame slightly more with the Samyang, but it's close enough imo to analyse the results. Loaded into LR with default sharpening and profile corrections.

I'm not sure how well it will show from these screenshots but centre sharpness is pretty comparable, I'd say the Samyang is 98% as good as the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN. Mid frame sharpness is again closer than I thought, I'd say the Samyang is 90-95% as good as the Sigma. The edges on the Samyang are noticeably worse than the Sigma, and the corners are a bit of a disaster :LOL: I still like the Samyang though, I don't concern myself with edge and corner sharpness with a lens like this so much, as long as the subject is sharp and it has nice rendering that's more important to me. I didn't bother to test it stopped down as it's unlikely it'll ever get used stopped down ;)

Sigma left, Samyang right

Full scene showing difference in framing

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.48.45 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Centre 1:1

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.49.15 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Edge 1:1

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.50.18 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Corner 1:1

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.49.53 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
So after David @Mr Perceptive mentioned that he noticed the shots with the Samyang were soft I decided to test it against the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN. I've never thought it particularly soft when processing and never thought that I needed to add extra sharpening and I believe it's always easier to see for yourself when processing than seeing photos online that might have had compression etc added. However tests show that there are a couple of areas of weaknesses, which doesn't surprise me although corners are worse than I was expecting.

Both shot using a tripod and at f1.4, the Samyang is closer to the chart to fill the frame obviously so I don't know if this will have any influence on the test. Also, framing isn't an exact match as I filled the frame slightly more with the Samyang, but it's close enough imo to analyse the results. Loaded into LR with default sharpening and profile corrections.

I'm not sure how well it will show from these screenshots but centre sharpness is pretty comparable, I'd say the Samyang is 98% as good as the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN. Mid frame sharpness is again closer than I thought, I'd say the Samyang is 90-95% as good as the Sigma. The edges on the Samyang are noticeably worse than the Sigma, and the corners are a bit of a disaster :LOL: I still like the Samyang though, I don't concern myself with edge and corner sharpness with a lens like this so much, as long as the subject is sharp and it has nice rendering that's more important to me. I didn't bother to test it stopped down as it's unlikely it'll ever get used stopped down ;)

Sigma left, Samyang right

Full scene showing difference in framing

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.48.45 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Centre 1:1

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.49.15 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Edge 1:1

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.50.18 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Corner 1:1

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.49.53 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Interesting to see the differences. Which Samyang lens were you comparing the Sigma 85mm DG DN to?
 
gilbouk said:
Interesting to see the differences. Which Samyang lens were you comparing the Sigma 85mm DG DN to?
Click to expand...
Haha, did I forget to mention which one :LOL: The 50mm f1.4 FE II, I'll amend my post to include it (y)
 
snerkler said:
So after David @Mr Perceptive mentioned that he noticed my shots with the Samyang 50mm f1.4 FE II were soft I decided to test it against the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN. I've never thought it particularly soft when processing and never thought that I needed to add extra sharpening and I believe it's always easier to see for yourself when processing than seeing photos online that might have had compression etc added. However tests show that there are a couple of areas of weaknesses, which doesn't surprise me although corners are worse than I was expecting.

Both shot using a tripod and at f1.4, the Samyang is closer to the chart to fill the frame obviously so I don't know if this will have any influence on the test. Also, framing isn't an exact match as I filled the frame slightly more with the Samyang, but it's close enough imo to analyse the results. Loaded into LR with default sharpening and profile corrections.

I'm not sure how well it will show from these screenshots but centre sharpness is pretty comparable, I'd say the Samyang is 98% as good as the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN. Mid frame sharpness is again closer than I thought, I'd say the Samyang is 90-95% as good as the Sigma. The edges on the Samyang are noticeably worse than the Sigma, and the corners are a bit of a disaster :LOL: I still like the Samyang though, I don't concern myself with edge and corner sharpness with a lens like this so much, as long as the subject is sharp and it has nice rendering that's more important to me. I didn't bother to test it stopped down as it's unlikely it'll ever get used stopped down ;)

Sigma left, Samyang right

Full scene showing difference in framing

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.48.45 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Centre 1:1

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.49.15 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Edge 1:1

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.50.18 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Corner 1:1

Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 10.49.53 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

They are also different price points.
I think sigma have done well to elevate themselves in items of optics since the introduction of ART series.

Samyang too have come a long way but they are not quite at the level of sigma.

I like how fast samyang lenses render even though it's a bit on the warmer side

Also I think 85DN is still the best 85mm option on e-mount. Where is the 85mm f1.2 from Sony :(
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
They are also different price points.
I think sigma have done well to elevate themselves in items of optics since the introduction of ART series.

Samyang too have come a long way but they are not quite at the level of sigma.

I like how fast samyang lenses render even though it's a bit on the warmer side
Click to expand...
Samyang are probably targeting a more budget orientated clientele.
 
@snerkler - The lab coats back :)

The Sigma is 9% sharper than the Samyang in the centre!!

Downloading your image from flickr (via full res screenshot!) and importing into some machine vision analysis software, I can look at the rate of change for edges in the centre concentric circle target using a vertical line drawn through the centre of the target. . The rate of change being how rapidly it changes from dark to light, from that I can get a 'value' for each edge. Putting all these values into an array, I can get an average for each lens. Overall the Sigma is 9% sharper, but thats not quite the whole picture.

Interestingly the Sigma is a long way ahead when just looking at the closer together lines (>15%), suggesting the Sigma has more resolving power than the Samyang. This is very noticable if I move the tools to the horizontal line square block to the top right of the concentric circle, where the Sigma comfortably out resolves the Samyang..

All of this is to be expected, and the main point is that you are happy with the lens.

Note these figures can only be approxiamte as the lighting isn't quite the same from each lens, and neither of us (despite you donning the coat :ROFLMAO:) are in lab conditions (and I downloaded the image from flickr, the results may be slightly different from a bitmap or tiff file, but I would expect them to be broadly the same)
 
Last edited:
BASTIANK wrote this in a lens review at Phillipreeve...

"As with every product we should not only consider its performance, but also its price/performance ratio"

Also when summing up the issues...

"But how many of the pictures you take with this lens will actually be ruined by these things? Looking through all the pictures I took with this lens I’d say: not that many."
 
Mr Perceptive said:
@snerkler - The lab coats back :)

The Sigma is 9% sharper than the Samyang in the centre!!

Downloading your image from flickr (via full res screenshot!) and importing into some machine vision analysis software, I can look at the rate of change for edges in the centre concentric circle target using a vertical line drawn through the centre of the target. . The rate of change being how rapidly it changes from dark to light, from that I can get a 'value' for each edge. Putting all these values into an array, I can get an average for each lens. Overall the Sigma is 9% sharper, but thats not quite the whole picture.

Interestingly the Sigma is a long way ahead when just looking at the closer together lines (>15%), suggesting the Sigma has more resolving power than the Samyang. This is very noticable if I move the tools to the horizontal line square block to the top right of the concentric circle, where the Sigma comfortably out resolves the Samyang..

All of this is to be expected, and the main point is that you are happy with the lens.

Note these figures can only be approxiamte as the lighting isn't quite the same from each lens, and neither of us (despite you donning the coat :ROFLMAO:) are in lab conditions (and I downloaded the image from flickr, the results may be slightly different from a bitmap or tiff filoe, but I would expect them to be braodly the same)
Click to expand...
Wow, you have some sophisticated tech, I just judge it by what my eyes can see :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
Wow, you have some sophisticated tech, I just judge it by what my eyes can see :LOL:
Click to expand...

Thats nothing, currently working on images from a 8K linescan camera (gives me a continuous row by row waterfall image as the target material passes underneath), with 3 lighting systems (so every third row of the image is from a different light) each strobing at 1kHz, pixel size 0.05mm looking for 0.3mm defects, some defects can only be detected by cross-correlating between the different lighting systems.

My head hurts.............................too much maths................. your chart was a welcome distraction :)

ancient_mariner said:
Indeed, and it may be a lens to choose because it's not the sharpest tool in the box.
Click to expand...

This is true.
 
I received something today :D

It completes my kit and I'll never have to buy anything else ever again. Unless something goes faulty.
 
LeeRatters said:
So did I?

@snerkler thank you very much :)
Click to expand...

I've just got a Pergear 35mm f1.4. It's a Chinese lens in E mount and it's tiny. It's the size of a compact film era 50mm f1.8 and of course you don't need an adapter. It seems sharp in the central area and other than that there's some vignetting and quite some distortion but a lens profile takes care of that and all in all I'm quite pleased.

I wanted some cheap E mount lenses and I now have the TTArtisan 50mm f2, this Pergear 35mm f1.4 and I also have a 50mm f1.1 in E mount which replaced the M mount one I had. Also these lenses were cheap.
 
woof woof said:
I've just got a Pergear 35mm f1.4. It's a Chinese lens in E mount and it's tiny. It's the size of a compact film era 50mm f1.8 and of course you don't need an adapter. It seems sharp in the central area and other than that there's some vignetting and quite some distortion but a lens profile takes care of that and all in all I'm quite pleased.

I wanted some cheap E mount lenses and I now have the TTArtisan 50mm f2, this Pergear 35mm f1.4 and I also have a 50mm f1.1 in E mount which replaced the M mount one I had. Also these lenses were cheap.
Click to expand...

Do you want me to test it :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Do you want me to test it :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

hehehe.

All I normally do is a centering test and then just shoot some stuff close up and at infinity, some stuff with straight lines and a couple to check sharpness and bokeh and I take a look at contrast and colour.

One disappointment with this lens I suppose is that it focuses past infinity. The 50mm f1.1 stops at infinity which is maybe more convenient when shooting hyperfocal. So I'll have to remember to dial it back a bit when using this 35mm f1.4.

100% at distance and f1.4. Very good.

7X9BFah.jpg


100%, focus on the eye lashes. Sharp enough.

SzCcS0s.jpg


Bokeh.

oek64HU.jpg


Towards the edge.

ZMMERRZ.jpg


I might be able to get out with it for an hour on Friday.
 
woof woof said:
I've just got a Pergear 35mm f1.4. It's a Chinese lens in E mount and it's tiny. It's the size of a compact film era 50mm f1.8 and of course you don't need an adapter. It seems sharp in the central area and other than that there's some vignetting and quite some distortion but a lens profile takes care of that and all in all I'm quite pleased.

I wanted some cheap E mount lenses and I now have the TTArtisan 50mm f2, this Pergear 35mm f1.4 and I also have a 50mm f1.1 in E mount which replaced the M mount one I had. Also these lenses were cheap.
Click to expand...

Sounds good Alan. I've never heard of it!
 
LeeRatters said:
Sounds good Alan. I've never heard of it!
Click to expand...

I got interested after reading this...

phillipreeve.net

Review: Pergear 35mm 1.4 - The cheapest 35mm fullframe lens -

The Pergear 35mm 1.4 is the cheapest small and at the same time fast fullframe 35mm lens. For $129 what can we expect from this
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

The build quality seems to be very good apart from the painted on markings. Oh, and on mine they've corrected the spelling mistake and my lens proudly proclaims it's MULTI COATED :D

To put this in some perspective, I think this is clearly better at wider apertures than my Minolta Rokkor 35mm f1.8 which can display pretty wild bokeh at wide apertures. I'll have to see if this smaller modern lens is better across the frame stopped down.

PS.
I forgot to say that all 4 corners look the same :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I got interested after reading this...

phillipreeve.net

Review: Pergear 35mm 1.4 - The cheapest 35mm fullframe lens -

The Pergear 35mm 1.4 is the cheapest small and at the same time fast fullframe 35mm lens. For $129 what can we expect from this
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

The build quality seems to be very good apart from the painted on markings. Oh, and on mine they've corrected the spelling mistake and my lens proudly proclaims it's MULTI COATED :D

To put this in some perspective, I think this is clearly better at wider apertures than my Minolta Rokkor 35mm f1.8 which can display pretty wild bokeh at wide apertures. I'll have to see if this smaller modern modern lens is better across the frame stopped down.

PS.
I forgot to say that all 4 corners look the same :D
Click to expand...

Alan, where did you buy it from, my son may well be interested in one.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Alan, where did you buy it from, my son may well be interested in one.
Click to expand...

They're all over the place but I got mine off Amazon as I thought paying a little more was ok for the easy return etc.


This is the 50mm f2 I bought some time ago.


PS.
Two new manual full frame E mount lenses for under £200 :D
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
So did I?

@snerkler thank you very much :)
Click to expand...
No worries, hope they're useful. I'm sure this is teaching you to suck eggs but I'd format them in camera before using them even though they were formatted in my A9ii.


woof woof said:
hehehe.

All I normally do is a centering test and then just shoot some stuff close up and at infinity, some stuff with straight lines and a couple to check sharpness and bokeh and I take a look at contrast and colour.

One disappointment with this lens I suppose is that it focuses past infinity. The 50mm f1.1 stops at infinity which is maybe more convenient when shooting hyperfocal. So I'll have to remember to dial it back a bit when using this 35mm f1.4.

100% at distance and f1.4. Very good.

7X9BFah.jpg


100%, focus on the eye lashes. Sharp enough.

SzCcS0s.jpg


Bokeh.

oek64HU.jpg


Towards the edge.

ZMMERRZ.jpg


I might be able to get out with it for an hour on Friday.
Click to expand...
That bokeh looks pretty nice, just a slight hint of cats eye shaping on the edges but no worse than most other lenses.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top