Sony A7x lounge

xpfloyd wrote in post #18073303
What an amazing landscape/cityscape lineup that would be!. Such a small but powerful kit

Fred wrote on FM forums a while back that Voigtlander were aware of the issue and it was around that time no one seemed to have stock anymore. Im hoping they have recalled and are looking into a fix. Im not sure where Fred got the info though

The weird thing is that there are actually perfect copies out there, albeit few and far between. This makes me think its a QC issue as opposed to a design flaw

Good to hear! Hopefully they'll get the 15mm QC problems fixed soon because I'd probably rather do 10mm, 15mm, 21mm, etc. It's reassuring that the 10mm seems to have excellent QC control.

mystik610 wrote in post #18073313
Yeah the rendering of the loxia lenses is something special. I too had the same crazy thought about the 35 and 50, but those two focal lengths double as portrait lenses for me and AF starts to matter.

I have a hunch that the next loxia lens will be an UWA.

Hope you're right about a UWA! Another idea that would super appeal to me is something akin to a Zeiss Makro-Planar 100mm...basically a killer long landscape lens.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18073151
Are you sure? Mine is free and I can see my exif

From my perspective with a free account, even the Flikr pages of the "Pros" seems to randomly show or hide exif information.

navydoc wrote in post #18073343
From my perspective with a free account, even the Flikr pages of the "Pros" seems to randomly show or hide exif information.

That's what it appears to be to me and I do pay for the pro account. At first I though t the EXIF was missing because I had uploaded an edited image, but among the unedited images some show EXIF and some don't. Random.

I just checked a few random people I follow with free accounts and I can see exif so I think its still as it should be

xpfloyd wrote in post #18073365
I just checked a few random people I follow with free accounts and I can see exif so I think its still as it should be

I've used different methods of uploading. Perhaps there's some instruction I need to change.

navydoc wrote in post #18073343
From my perspective with a free account, even the Flikr pages of the "Pros" seems to randomly show or hide exif information.

I thought i messed up something but when I saw my pics on 500px showing exif, i can confirmed that flicker did something for the free accounts.

like this....
https://500px.com …rom=user&user_i​d=12014171

David Arbogast wrote in post #18073324
Hope you're right about a UWA! Another idea that would super appeal to me is something akin to a Zeiss Makro-Planar 100mm...basically a killer long landscape lens.

macro planar needs CA correction, and smaller size for mirrorless. I'de totally be in favor of both 50 and 100 mp if they came in E-mount. Other than the CA, the MP IQ is spectacular. Very sharp wide open, bokeh was killer, micro contrast high. Weight was my biggest beef, I didnt have issue with the telescoping design, I prefer that it stays small for most the focal distances, that way it's more compact for most of it's applications.

Inside the state building, and grand park

Image hosted by forum (804363) © Charlie THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

(SR4) Zeiss FE roadmap: 5 Batis and 5 Loxia by end 2016!

A very good source shared an info he got from a Zeiss manager. He said “Zeiss’s target is to have 5 Loxia and 5 Batis by end 2016.”

I do hope Zeiss will also increase the production to make them available as soon as it gets!

Source: SonyAlphaRumors

No SR5, but still...

quick question for all u canon glass guys,any one have the canon 15mm f2.8 fish eye,?
i found a used local one for sale,specs say its for full frame cams,as u know i use a fish eye all the time but mine is a crop and i use it on apc.
would i notice much difference in fov using the 8mm in crop or the 15mm full frame,i know the canon is prob better optically and its a faster but would it be worth 300 difference in price? thanx guys

Sorry for posting an image already posted at the FE 90 Macro forum but I wondered if the exif info remains intact if I use my (paid for) Smugmug account I already have. If so, I may have to start using that site again. Oddly enough, this image on my Flickr page doesn't even show what camera was used.

IMAGE LINK: https://genelewis.smug​mug.com …neous-musings/i-Wb6hwCK/A

Thanks everyone for your input on cloning out the power lines. I will try your tips.

Gene, how do you get the EXIF info to show up using smugmug?

digital_AM wrote in post #18073570
Thanks everyone for your input on cloning out the power lines. I will try your tips.

Gene, how do you get the EXIF info to show up using smugmug?

Nothing special. I just uploaded the same jpg to Smugmug that I did to Flickr, clicked on the "share" icon, selected the appropriate size and "bbcode". Then it was just a matter of copying the link and pasting it in my post. Once posted, I did have to select which lens was used from my "gear list".

I'll need to compare what I pay for my Smugmug account vs what the "Pro" version of Flickr is and what benifits it offers...beyond exif information showing of course.

I just checked and I paid $60 for a year's subscription to Smugmug's "Power" plan account. Flickr's Pro plan annual rate is $49.99. I'll have to see which of the two options make the most sense for me. If anyone has an opinion as to which one they would choose and why, feel free to post it.