The Sony A73/A7R3/A7S3/A9 Thread

SDK^ · 29 Jan 2020 at 12:59

pc-guy said:
A7iii has usb c which you can connect to computer for direct download off the camera. Not sure how quick it is tho.

off load to cloud with RAW file that can be 100mb will eat up any mobile data plan like mad and also you need fibre connection to be able to download it to PC faster than SD speeds.

For sure there are some challenges in some instances but there are always work arounds or better ways.
e.g. how many people are there who own a camera that produces 100mb RAW files and don't have a fast/fibre internet connection?
In terms of mobile data usage - the solution there is to have an option to locally store files only, until connected to a WiFi network.

Cloud storage is a win for the customer and a win for the camera maker.
It gives the camera maker the ability to 'lock in' users to their systems through a simple cloud storage sub. It would go someway to improve their revenue too

The_Abyss · 29 Jan 2020 at 13:37

Clov!s said:
I had the Tamron 28-75 2.8, 55 1.8, 35 1.4 and a 70-200 2.8.

Sadly they are all gone now, I’ve been looking at the A7R3 for the higher resolution as I’d like to have some artwork printed onto canvas for my house.

How big are you looking to go? I’ve printed a 60” wide canvas from the A7iii and it is absolutely fine - even got a slight crop in too.

pc-guy · 29 Jan 2020 at 14:01

SDK^ said:
For sure there are some challenges in some instances but there are always work arounds or better ways.
e.g. how many people are there who own a camera that produces 100mb RAW files and don't have a fast/fibre internet connection?
In terms of mobile data usage - the solution there is to have an option to locally store files only, until connected to a WiFi network.

Cloud storage is a win for the customer and a win for the camera maker.
It gives the camera maker the ability to 'lock in' users to their systems through a simple cloud storage sub. It would go someway to improve their revenue too

Raw file off A7 iii is 50mb, my fibre is only 60mbs and don’t have gigabit internet. So it is quite common. For the later Sony there’s files are huge as it is pixel shifted and combined.

the cloud storage will also need to be massive. I have 256GB and 128GB sd atm. That’s by no way large on professional standards. So you will be look at least to cover 500gb for a shoot or 1TB to cover a few days for say a long trip. I dunno, sounds like you will be uploading compressed raw as opposed to uncompressed. When 6G comes and data becomes cheap for sure.

SDK^ · 14 Feb 2020 at 19:25

pc-guy said:
Raw file off A7 iii is 50mb, my fibre is only 60mbs and don’t have gigabit internet. So it is quite common. For the later Sony there’s files are huge as it is pixel shifted and combined.

the cloud storage will also need to be massive. I have 256GB and 128GB sd atm. That’s by no way large on professional standards. So you will be look at least to cover 500gb for a shoot or 1TB to cover a few days for say a long trip. I dunno, sounds like you will be uploading compressed raw as opposed to uncompressed. When 6G comes and data becomes cheap for sure.

Canon just launched a Cloud Service for photos.
Image.Canon integrates with all Adobe Photo apps, some Social Media sites and auto transfer to Google Drive. Info here : https://image.canon/st/en/index.html?region=1&referrer=https://www.google.com/

Dreams can come true

Expect others to follow

jonneymendoza · 14 Feb 2020 at 23:36

SDK^ said:
One area which really needs to be improved across all DSLR, Mirrorless and Compact cameras is the transfer of the photos from the camera.

We are nearly in 2020 and I can't believe you still need to exit the memory card and plug it into a computer to get at the photos.
Yes there is wireless transfer option but the process is nearly impossible to setup and if you do get the camera connected by wireless the interface is super clunky to use.

Give me photo cloud storage for a small fee each month and all my images auto transfer from the camera via WiFi or a data signal.

Na too slow and too expensive.

I've shot 6tb worth of raw pics just from last year. What cloud storage can handle that?

SDK^ · 15 Feb 2020 at 07:14

jonneymendoza said:
Na too slow and too expensive.

I've shot 6tb worth of raw pics just from last year. What cloud storage can handle that?

Cloud functionality is more than storage - e.g. auto transfer of images; see my post from yesterday above which shows what Canon are doing in this space.
Also, who said the storage had to be permenant....and that it had to meet the needs of everyone all of the time. Just because you shoot 6TB of photos a year doesn’t mean everyone does.

One of the reasons why the compact, medium size, DSLR and mirrorless camera market is shrinking is because of the current clunky method of getting photos out of the camera. The majority of people want what smartphones provide - convenience.

sHo0sH · 15 Feb 2020 at 08:28

jonneymendoza said:
Na too slow and too expensive.

I've shot 6tb worth of raw pics just from last year. What cloud storage can handle that?

And how many GB's worth of those were keepers?

jonneymendoza · 15 Feb 2020 at 09:31

SDK^ said:
Cloud functionality is more than storage - e.g. auto transfer of images; see my post from yesterday above which shows what Canon are doing in this space.
Also, who said the storage had to be permenant....and that it had to meet the needs of everyone all of the time. Just because you shoot 6TB of photos a year doesn’t mean everyone does.

One of the reasons why the compact, medium size, DSLR and mirrorless camera market is shrinking is because of the current clunky method of getting photos out of the camera. The majority of people want what smartphones provide - convenience.

Most don't automatically transfer in the phone. They first cull and choose what image they want to post and maybe do some editing using Instagram and post it there with tags and stuff.

The only difference is that it's all built in the phone.

I can use the same work flow as a casual phone camera user using my a9 connected to my phone via WiFi. I have it auto sends each pic I took when I take the pic on my camera in real time. I then simply go to my phone and pick and send to Instagram

tatts · 29 Feb 2020 at 14:40

Been shooting the 200-600 and 100-400 back to back this week after picking up an A7R4 and I've gotta say, I don't think that the 100-400 will be used much anymore. really impressed with the 200-600.

footman · 29 Feb 2020 at 17:51

tatts said:
Been shooting the 200-600 and 100-400 back to back this week after picking up an A7R4 and I've gotta say, I don't think that the 100-400 will be used much anymore. really impressed with the 200-600.

I put the 100-400 up for sale when I got the 200-600 but decided that was a bit rash so took it off again! I'll test it during the summer against the 200-600 for things like dragon flies. I suspect that on the A9 it won't make a lot of difference so I can see me putting it up for sale again later. It's such a versatile sharp and portable lens though.
Edit: I see that you're from Cumbria. I'm going up in May, is the RSPB place at Haweswater worth a visit. I've also heard about ospreys and eagles in the area, is this a reality or myth?

And · 29 Feb 2020 at 18:19

Better keeping the 1-4 for insects, if you want them close anyway. The 1-4 gets just under a metre, with a 1.4x on for extra magnification it's a good combo for insects.

tatts · 29 Feb 2020 at 19:00

footman said:
I put the 100-400 up for sale when I got the 200-600 but decided that was a bit rash so took it off again! I'll test it during the summer against the 200-600 for things like dragon flies. I suspect that on the A9 it won't make a lot of difference so I can see me putting it up for sale again later. It's such a versatile sharp and portable lens though.
Edit: I see that you're from Cumbria. I'm going up in May, is the RSPB place at Haweswater worth a visit. I've also heard about ospreys and eagles in the area, is this a reality or myth?

I’ve not been here all that long and never been there so can’t comment sorry but yes there’s a couple of places for ospreys. Not seen any eagles this far down but when I lived just north of the border it was a daily site as we had a pair close by.

And said:
Better keeping the 1-4 for insects, if you want them close anyway. The 1-4 gets just under a metre, with a 1.4x on for extra magnification it's a good combo for insects.

I’ve used two copies of the 1.4 TC on the 70-200 GM and the 100-400, you get better quality just cropping to the equivalent focal length and I wouldn’t recommend buying one. As for the close ups, I have the macro lens.

footman · 29 Feb 2020 at 19:32

I've also got the 90mm macro so there could be some redundancy there. I'm looking forward to a busy summer!

Paul2k12 · 1 Mar 2020 at 10:47

What’s people’s opinions on the Sony A7 II upgrade from Canon 80D. Fancy the switch to full frame for the low light capabilities and Mirrorless portability.

Thanks

Raymond Lin · 1 Mar 2020 at 11:13

Paul2k12 said:
What’s people’s opinions on the Sony A7 II upgrade from Canon 80D. Fancy the switch to full frame for the low light capabilities and Mirrorless portability.

Thanks

the A72 is very basic, it is not much more than the A7 with IBIS.

And · 1 Mar 2020 at 11:20

I see no difference in IQ using the 1.4x, just a subject filling the frame better. Arthur Morris' blog and the wildlife threads on the Sony forum at FredMiranda back this up. I guess you're just unlucky.

tatts said:
I’ve used two copies of the 1.4 TC on the 70-200 GM and the 100-400, you get better quality just cropping to the equivalent focal length and I wouldn’t recommend buying one. As for the close ups, I have the macro lens.

Paul2k12 · 1 Mar 2020 at 11:25

Raymond Lin said:
the A72 is very basic, it is not much more than the A7 with IBIS.

So do you think A7R II or save and wait for A7III?

Raymond Lin · 1 Mar 2020 at 11:32

Paul2k12 said:
So do you think A7R II or save and wait for A7III?

R2 if you want resolution or III if you want better all round camera.

avoid the II if you can hold off and wait.

tatts · 1 Mar 2020 at 13:08

And said:
I see no difference in IQ using the 1.4x, just a subject filling the frame better. Arthur Morris' blog and the wildlife threads on the Sony forum at FredMiranda back this up. I guess you're just unlucky.

I can’t find the blog you refer to but if you think you don’t lose any quality then you are only kidding yourself. Almost everyone I know and have seen post on forums share the same opinion. Happy to be proven otherwise with high res examples of the same subject. Maybe all the TC I have used and all the various lenses I tested them with on various platforms have all been faulty?

jonneymendoza · 2 Mar 2020 at 14:34

tatts said:
I can’t find the blog you refer to but if you think you don’t lose any quality then you are only kidding yourself. Almost everyone I know and have seen post on forums share the same opinion. Happy to be proven otherwise with high res examples of the same subject. Maybe all the TC I have used and all the various lenses I tested them with on various platforms have all been faulty?

define "any" as it as little as 0.1% IQ difference?

Or as a significant obvious different(30% or more IQ)