Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
Thread started 10 Jan 2018 (Wednesday) 17:58
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Long time Canon user....but this A7R iii looks too good!

 
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,541 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 6601
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jan 13, 2018 18:22 |  #31

JeffreyG wrote in post #18540129 (external link)
That seems like an agreement that keeping the 5D3 and using that for my sports and other telephoto needs is a good plan.

Yeah it's probably worth holding onto unless you decide to pick up some native glass to cover those ranges. I actually did that for a while before the a7rII was released and AF with adapted lenses was terrible and I needed my 5DIII for wedding and event work with f2.8 zooms that did no exist with Sony back then. The transition to Sony took a 2+ years for me.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18540129 (external link)
I have a 50L. I was thinking of selling that and trying the 55/1.8 as a first foray into Sony native lenses. Would you expect the 55/1.8 to perform noticeable better on the A7rIII than the 50L with metabones?

In the short term I'd see myself running two bodies most the the time, with <85mm lenses mounted to the Sony and my long lenses on the 5D3.

The downside of my plan is that I spend some $3500 on another body, and still use the 5D3 for most of my most demanding poor light shooting (sports).

So the FE 55 is smaller and sharper than the 50L, but I've always been a sucker for the rendering of the 50L and since shooting on the a7 bodies correct all of the focusing issues, it breathes new life into that lens. The look of that lens when its actually critically in focus is money

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1477/25292380453_554c11fb95_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Ex14​x4  (external link) _DSC9949 (external link) by Carlo Alcala (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1569/26484939635_ac8e6508bf_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Gmoe​Qg  (external link) _DSC2114r (external link) by Carlo Alcala (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1607/25368580783_b3bc559b6b_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EDJB​eR  (external link) _DSC9968 (external link) by Carlo Alcala (external link), on Flickr

focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rantercsr
Goldmember
Avatar
2,163 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 3567
Joined Mar 2014
     
Jan 13, 2018 18:36 |  #32

i just got the a7r3..

and i know they said eye AF was capable now with adapted EF lenses..

but i figured i'd need to sell my 35 1.4 mkii.. (which i felt down about )

but so far it seems as though I wont really have to , as eye AF works very well for my typical use..

even the 85 1.8 works well enough ..
that i don't feel pressured to need to run out and get sony lenses right away to be able to enjoy Eye AF.


Fuji XH1 / Sony A7R3 / Pentax K1000
My portraits IG (external link)My everything else IG (external link)
MYflickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,340 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 451
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Post edited 3 months ago by JeffreyG.
     
Jan 13, 2018 19:20 |  #33

mystik610 wrote in post #18540325 (external link)
So the FE 55 is smaller and sharper than the 50L, but I've always been a sucker for the rendering of the 50L and since shooting on the a7 bodies correct all of the focusing issues, it breathes new life into that lens. The look of that lens when its actually critically in focus is money

Hmmm, you are really selling me on starting off by just adding an A7rIII and using mostly my EOS lenses. Maybe that is smart. If I really like it, I might eventually migrate to some more Sony glass.

I'm with you on what I want from my very fast lenses. I like the way images look from the Canon 24L II, 50L, and 85L II. I know these lenses have some flaws, but they make some really pretty images too. If they work on the Sony, I'm not sure I want something that is more clinically 'better'.

But I am intrigued with the way the Sony A7 works. I'm definitely feeling that I want to give it a shot. One funny thought - The one lens the Sony would actually make obsolete in my kit is my 10 year old 24-105L that I got with my 5D classic (kit). I keep it because it's a handy travel lens and has IS. But if I mount my 24-70L II on the Sony, with IS and 42 MP (for extra reach through cropping) then the old 24-105L has no further purpose for me. Too bad it is worth so little on the used market.

Oh - is there any 'best time' to buy a new Sony? Canon has their rebate seasons that most of us have learned. Anything like that with Sony?


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,541 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 6601
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jan 13, 2018 20:16 |  #34

JeffreyG wrote in post #18540347 (external link)
Hmmm, you are really selling me on starting off by just adding an A7rIII and using mostly my EOS lenses. Maybe that is smart. If I really like it, I might eventually migrate to some more Sony glass.

I'm with you on what I want from my very fast lenses. I like the way images look from the Canon 24L II, 50L, and 85L II. I know these lenses have some flaws, but they make some really pretty images too. If they work on the Sony, I'm not sure I want something that is more clinically 'better'.

But I am intrigued with the way the Sony A7 works. I'm definitely feeling that I want to give it a shot. One funny thought - The one lens the Sony would actually make obsolete in my kit is my 10 year old 24-105L that I got with my 5D classic (kit). I keep it because it's a handy travel lens and has IS. But if I mount my 24-70L II on the Sony, with IS and 42 MP (for extra reach through cropping) then the old 24-105L has no further purpose for me. Too bad it is worth so little on the used market.

Oh - is there any 'best time' to buy a new Sony? Canon has their rebate seasons that most of us have learned. Anything like that with Sony?

Yeah given how well adapted glass tends to play with the a7rIII, there's less motivation to pick up native glass as there was when I switched. I'd probably own a lot more Canon glass right now if the a7rIII had existed a couple years back.

Best time to buy a Sony body? When the next body is introduced. Sony releases bodies at a fairly rapid rate, and when something new is announced, older stuff tends to get discounted. If you're cool buying used, Sony tends to appeal to people with GAS, and whenever a new model is announced, the used market tends to flood with 'not so old' models. a9 can be had for slightly more than the a7rIII these days.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,411 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4656
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 13, 2018 20:22 |  #35

rantercsr wrote in post #18540332 (external link)
i just got the a7r3..

and i know they said eye AF was capable now with adapted EF lenses..

but i figured i'd need to sell my 35 1.4 mkii.. (which i felt down about )

but so far it seems as though I wont really have to , as eye AF works very well for my typical use..

even the 85 1.8 works well enough ..
that i don't feel pressured to need to run out and get sony lenses right away to be able to enjoy Eye AF.

just be aware that eye AF only works with continuous low (3fps). at anything faster, only the first frame will focus, subsequent frames dont lock. That should satisfy many scenarios, but something like the FE 85 + eye AF + high speed.... pretty amazing.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jebrady03
Member
Avatar
164 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 102
Joined Jan 2014
Post edited 3 months ago by jebrady03.
     
Jan 14, 2018 04:50 |  #36

I had a fair amount of fast glass with Canon but for me, one appeal of the E mount system was the ABILITY to choose smaller, but not markedly inferior lenses. Using Canon glass and the adapter will usually mean a larger, longer, heavier combination than what's available with Sony.

Lenses that I had vs lenses I now have...
EF 16-35 f/4L IS --> FE 16-35 f/4 - Sony is 100g lighter, but .4" longer, but then you add the adapter and it's significantly lighter and shorter
EF 35mm f/1.4L II --> FE 35mm f/1.4 - Sony is 130g lighter, but about .25" longer, but then you add the adapter and it, too, is significantly lighter and shorter. This is the ONLY lens switch I struggled with making. The 35L II is SO INSANELY SHARP that even a perfect copy of the Sony can't keep up. However, the Sony does render backgrounds smoother and in a more pleasant fashion. Here, I made my logical mind overrule my emotional mind and sell the Canon in favor of the lens which was native, smaller, and lighter. I still question whether I made the right decision VERY frequently. The Sony 35/1.4 is FANTASTIC, but the Canon... the sharpness... WOW!
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art --> FE 55mm f/1.8 - Sony is 430 grams lighter, 3/4" smaller in diameter, and over 1" shorter than the Sigma, but then you add the adapter and the difference swells even more. The difference in size and weight is ridiculous and adding the adapter makes it downright absurd. The 55mm f/1.8 is easily just as sharp as the Sigma 50mm Art (which is known for being razor sharp). Obviously the aperture difference makes this not a fair comparison, but again, one of my goals was to decrease size and weight without sacrificing image quality, even at the expense of aperture speed and this trade achieves that for me in spades!
EF 85mm f/1.2L II --> Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8 - Zeiss is almost 600g lighter, and nominally longer, but once again, if you add the adapter to the Canon, the lens length difference is in favor of the Zeiss and the weight difference increases substantially. This is another situation where the apertures are not the same, but I sacrificed lens speed in favor of size, length, and weight.
EF 135mm f/2L II --> Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 - Zeiss is 136g lighter, and nominally longer, but just as above, if you add the adapter to the Canon lens, the picture changes dramatically. Same situation as above with regards to smaller aperture but the difference in size, length, and weight make it worthwhile.

I use my equipment quite a bit for family outings and I don't mind lens swapping. So, for trips to places like Disney, Busch Gardens, the beach, etc., I'll bring a camera and 2-3 lenses. On the very first trip we went on with my Sony gear, my wife picked up my camera bag to hang it on the stroller, like we always do, and her eyes got BIG and she turned to me and said "this is a LOT lighter". Then she inspected the bag from the outside and said "it looks smaller too" (referencing the depth of the bag - which is an across-body bag). And she's right, it's QUITE noticeable.

Again, I realize I've sacrificed some speed in terms of aperture, but I'm okay with that as I haven't sacrificed image quality (the 35mm trade off favors smoother backgrounds so I tell myself that one is worth it... lol).

Here's an image from yesterday where I was testing the ability of the A9 to track the eyeball of a running toddler using the Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8 at f/2. Of 7 images, the first of him standing still and the next 6 of him running, all were perfectly focused on his eye except this one (the last one) which was only off by a minuscule fraction of an inch and appears tack sharp unless you view at 100% or greater.

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4604/38783890115_f8cba43a3b_b.jpg

This is something that the 85L II could NEVER accomplish thanks to it's slower-than-everything-else-on-the-market AF speed.

Just something to think about (the size/weight/bulk thing)...



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,735 posts
Likes: 892
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited 3 months ago by bobbyz. (3 edits in all)
     
Jan 14, 2018 09:14 |  #37

Personally both size, weight difference are tiny IMHO comparing Sony and Canon as both are FF. Camera size, weight difference yes but not much either again if you compare say with 6d. Sensor performance and eye AF, I agree. Personally I went Fuji route as I didn't like A7RII when I tried it. Mostly due to Sony interface, cameras are more computer than a camera. Fuji on other hand was pure joy to use. As I don't shoot crazy high ISOs, for me 16MP XT1 with 56mm f1.2 was just as good as my 5dmk3/85L. I did side by side with A7RII and Batis 85mm f1.8 and decided to stick with Fuji. Again at the time I didn't needed 40+MP or the ISO6400.

Since FF is revered so much in the forums, when I got the chance to upgrade to higher MP body, instead of going with A7RIII, I took the plunge and got another crop camera but this time bigger than FF, the Fuji GFX. The Fuji 110mm f2 is really really good. AF is little slower as only contrast based but man, the files from this MF camera are so much better and this Sony sensor is a 3 yrs old technology. Canon has lot of catching up to do.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fplstudio
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
401 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1859
Joined Jun 2015
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post edited 3 months ago by fplstudio.
     
Jan 14, 2018 18:20 |  #38

mystik610 wrote in post #18540364 (external link)
Yeah given how well adapted glass tends to play with the a7rIII, there's less motivation to pick up native glass as there was when I switched. I'd probably own a lot more Canon glass right now if the a7rIII had existed a couple years back.

Best time to buy a Sony body? When the next body is introduced. Sony releases bodies at a fairly rapid rate, and when something new is announced, older stuff tends to get discounted. If you're cool buying used, Sony tends to appeal to people with GAS, and whenever a new model is announced, the used market tends to flood with 'not so old' models. a9 can be had for slightly more than the a7rIII these days.

I've seen that A7R iii has greatly improved AF with adapted Canon lenses. Is this true only with metabones or also with the sigma mc-11?


Canon 5Ds R | 16-35 4L IS | 24-105 4L IS | 70-200 4L IS | 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS ii | 14 2.8 Samy | 35 1.4 Art | 85 1.8 | 135 2L | EXT 1.4X II
Sony A6300 | E 10-18 4 OSS | E 35 1.8 OSS | E 50 1.8 OSS
Godox AD200 | V860ii-C | 2x TT600

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,541 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 6601
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jan 14, 2018 18:33 |  #39

fplstudio wrote in post #18540931 (external link)
I've seen that A7R iii has greatly improved AF with adapted Canon lenses. Is this true only with metabones or also with the sigma mc-11?

It's a constantly moving target with the development that both metabones and Sigma do with their adapters, and what Sony does with their bodies.

At this point, metabones iis the best to use.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fplstudio
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
401 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1859
Joined Jun 2015
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 22, 2018 16:35 |  #40

I've seen many claiming the switch for weight saving. Now that there is a reasonable variety of lenses in Sony ecosystem I would say that the weight factor is practically not going to make any difference.

In an hypotetical migration of all my lenses in sign to sony couterpart I would gain just 490 gr or 1 lb of weight saving. So for weight saving the only answer is a parallel M4/3 or sony aps-c system. Don't you agree?


Canon 5Ds R | 16-35 4L IS | 24-105 4L IS | 70-200 4L IS | 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS ii | 14 2.8 Samy | 35 1.4 Art | 85 1.8 | 135 2L | EXT 1.4X II
Sony A6300 | E 10-18 4 OSS | E 35 1.8 OSS | E 50 1.8 OSS
Godox AD200 | V860ii-C | 2x TT600

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,340 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 451
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 22, 2018 17:29 |  #41

fplstudio wrote in post #18546781 (external link)
I've seen many claiming the switch for weight saving. Now that there is a reasonable variety of lenses in Sony ecosystem I would say that the weight factor is practically not going to make any difference.

In an hypotetical migration of all my lenses in sign to sony couterpart I would gain just 490 gr or 1 lb of weight saving. So for weight saving the only answer is a parallel M4/3 or sony aps-c system. Don't you agree?

Basically yes, for someone who prioritizes a smaller kit or who does not need the capabilities of the A7/A9 type camera, the smaller format Fuji, Oly systems are the better choice.

If you tally up the weight of your entire dSLR kit, the Sony system is probably only 15% - 20% less. This is because all of the big, fast zooms are the same size. The really fast and expensive primes are also quite large. So altogether it's not a big gain.

For me, I accept 'big-n-heavy' for my overall gear because a lot of the time getting the shot is what I care about. Where I care about weight is when I'm traveling or carrying light. In these cases, I'm usually only hauling a subset of my stuff.

Try a couple comparisons:
5D3 + 24-105L (My travel kit for 5 years) @ 1620g vs. A7RIII + FE 24-105 @ 1320 g. That's a 19% weight savings. It's also a little smaller. Still, that isn't worth changing systems for.

5D3 + 35/2 IS + 85/1.8 @ 1710g vs. A7rIII + FE 35/2.8 + FE 85/1.8 @ 1148g. That's a 33% savings for the classic 35/85 prime combo, but then again the Sony kit is one stop slower at 35mm.

Anyway - yup, the Sony system is not a path to a huge savings in weight. It's a little bit smaller and a little bit lighter.

One area I'm not so familiar with is adapted UWA and WA primes. I wonder if the short register distance on the Sony allows for some very compact non-retrofocus lenses to work. Think of the Leica rangefinder stuff and how absolutely tiny the 21, 24, 28mm stuff is for that camera. Similar designs should work on the Sony, in theory. So if you are an UWA / WA landscape shooter, there might be some weight savings. Every UWA / WA lens on the EOS system is a giant retrofocus design.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dlee13
Goldmember
Avatar
2,873 posts
Gallery: 351 photos
Likes: 1603
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Jan 22, 2018 17:32 |  #42

fplstudio wrote in post #18546781 (external link)
I've seen many claiming the switch for weight saving. Now that there is a reasonable variety of lenses in Sony ecosystem I would say that the weight factor is practically not going to make any difference.

In an hypotetical migration of all my lenses in sign to sony couterpart I would gain just 490 gr or 1 lb of weight saving. So for weight saving the only answer is a parallel M4/3 or sony aps-c system. Don't you agree?

I am curious about getting an A7r III sometime this year and I would definitely agree that weight is not an advantage due to lens size. For me the EVF and AF in general is the main attraction of the Sony mirrorless. I love the look of AF and from using my M5, I find the accuracy much better compared to my DSLR.


Canon 6D Mark II ~ Canon M5 ~ Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 ~ Canon EF 35mm f2 IS ~ Canon EF 16-35mm f4L IS ~ Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM ~ Sigma 85mm f1.4
Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,541 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 6601
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited 3 months ago by mystik610.
     
Jan 22, 2018 17:38 |  #43

Yes the size advantage definitely depends on what lenses you're using. I have my big zooms and large aperture primes that I use for paid work. But I also have a very compact kit with the 35 f2.8, 50 1.8, and loxia 21. Other notably small native lenses include the 85 1.8, 28 f2, Batis 25, 55 1.8, loxia 35, loxia 50, Batis 18, cv12, cv15, cv40...thats quite a lot.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fplstudio
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
401 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1859
Joined Jun 2015
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post edited 3 months ago by fplstudio.
     
Jan 22, 2018 17:43 |  #44

In my recent trip I had

5dsr + 16-35/4 + 70-200/4 IS + Samy 14 2.8 + 24-105 / 4 @ 3486 gr
Sony counterpart would have been
a7riii + FE 16-35/4 + FE 70-200/4 oss + Samy 14 2.8 + GM 24-105 / 4 @ 3183 gr

The difference is less than 9% and basically is the just the camera, lens setup have same weight


Canon 5Ds R | 16-35 4L IS | 24-105 4L IS | 70-200 4L IS | 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS ii | 14 2.8 Samy | 35 1.4 Art | 85 1.8 | 135 2L | EXT 1.4X II
Sony A6300 | E 10-18 4 OSS | E 35 1.8 OSS | E 50 1.8 OSS
Godox AD200 | V860ii-C | 2x TT600

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,541 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 6601
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jan 22, 2018 18:11 |  #45

fplstudio wrote in post #18546826 (external link)
In my recent trip I had

5dsr + 16-35/4 + 70-200/4 IS + Samy 14 2.8 + 24-105 / 4 @ 3486 gr
Sony counterpart would have been
a7riii + FE 16-35/4 + FE 70-200/4 oss + Samy 14 2.8 + GM 24-105 / 4 @ 3183 gr

The difference is less than 9% and basically is the just the camera, lens setup have same weight

Yeah the size advantages are pretty nil with zooms, as they require larger more complex lens designs. With primes, the size and weight savings can be substantial


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,726 views & 81 likes for this thread
Long time Canon user....but this A7R iii looks too good!
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mason.snipes
695 guests, 382 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.