Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

mystik610 wrote in post #18979001
Hey Gene.

The amount blur is the same because the focal length and subject distance is the same between the two shots.

To illustrate the equivalence, you'd need to change the focal length between the aps-c and FF shots so the subject framing is (roughly) the same. That's where the degree of blur at a set aperture differs when you use crop mode.

FE55 @ f1.8 crop mode:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2i3T​PBG DSC01438 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

85GM @ f1.8 FF:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2i3T​Pyk DSC01439 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Gotcha, thanks.

idsurfer wrote in post #18978982
I used the 135L on canon 5D2's and 3's. It made great images with a very nice separation and wow factor. But, as you said, the working distance is quite long. After some years it became very apparent that I preferred using 85mm over 135. I passed the 135 on and have never really regretted it. That's why I haven't ever thought too hard about adding the Sony 85/1.8 to my crop kit. I've decided that anything longer than 85mm (FF equiv) is going to be some sort of a zoom. I'm patiently waiting for the tamron 70-180/2.8 which will get me out there pretty far with a 105-360 equiv. That said, I'm feel like I'm getting too invested into crop world. I feel like I have too many lenses.

that was kinda my thought process...I looked back at my data in LR for the last two years to three years...it has tapered off a lot on my use of the 135L...from 2100 images in 2017 to 366 in 2019...but in total the 85GM has shot 17K frames and the 135L only 3k...I have to look at what I use, what am I really getting from things in my bag...if they are not being used, I can't justify having them just cause I really like it...

TRhoads wrote in post #18979042
that was kinda my thought process...I looked back at my data in LR for the last two years to three years...it has tapered off a lot on my use of the 135L...from 2100 images in 2017 to 366 in 2019...but in total the 85GM has shot 17K frames and the 135L only 3k...I have to look at what I use, what am I really getting from things in my bag...if they are not being used, I can't justify having them just cause I really like it...

Could you imagine if we all done that......?!?!?

TRhoads wrote in post #18978949
What lens.

I am torn about lenses at the moment. While I loved the 135GM...when working with more than a single person the working distance still gets in the way...I feel a bit disconnected from the people...so am torn about adding it. So many wants...from lenses to car parts...

I've owned several 135's throughout the years and they never stay in my bag for the reasons you described. 85mm is a much more engaging focal length to work with. I have been tempted for the past year or so by the Sigma 105 since it seems to sit the difference between 85 and 135, but this is more out of G.A.S, curiosity, and boredom. 85GM has done everything I need it to since I picked it up 3 years ago.

The flip side is that I'm starting to feel OK with keeping lenses even if I don't use them much if they fill a special purpose need. i.e. I always end up selling UWA zooms because my need for them come and goes. Now that Disney is done, the Sigma 14-24 I acquired last month will probably sit in my bag for months between uses. But when I need an UWA, I really need it and its good to have in my bag ready to go.

Casey

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

mystik610 wrote in post #18979006

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2i3U​deA DSC01363 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Your daughter is beautiful. Great shot.

vinmunoz wrote in post #18979142
Your daughter is beautiful. Great shot.

Thank you vinz!

navydoc wrote in post #18978942
Ah, I didn't realize cropping changed the apparent aperture size. I also wrote the cropped focal length as 82.5mm by multiplying 55mm by 1.5 which is what I thought was the crop factor.

For the fun of it, I set my rIV + 55mm lens on a tripod and took two shots, identical except for the 2nd in crop mode. Then I stacked them in PS. I added a stroke around the APS-C image (6240 x 4160) so it would show over the full frame shot (9504 x 6336). By turning the APS-C image layer on and off, I couldn't see any noticeable difference in depth of field/bocah. I did make one error when I took the two shots in that I forgot to be in manual exposure mode so I had to lighten the APS-C image slightly to match the full frame version because they were metered differently.

I made an animated .gif of doing that, at a much reduced image size of course.

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

Great effort Gene.
In my mind the aperture does not change when going into cropper mode.
That, in my mind, is a huge advantage in going cropper versus added a teleconverter.
Cropper does not punish me with the added piece(s) of glass and loss of a stop or two.
In my mind DOF does not change.
But you all know I'm a snapshooter and don't think too much through the photography theory.
The arguments at DPReview are legendary on effective 35mm focal lengths versus the real focal length.
I ignore the vast majority of those threads

itsallart wrote in post #18978962
Smoking the heck out of my house. Thank goodness I shoot on my cook-top and then exhaust the smoke

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by itsallart originally in forum: Still Life, B/W & Experimental

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by itsallart originally in forum: Still Life, B/W & Experimental

. so it's not too bad

Hosted photo: posted by itsallart in
./showthread.php?p=189​78962&i=i157574881
forum: Sony Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by itsallart in
./showthread.php?p=189​78962&i=i255711853
forum: Sony Cameras

Fantastic results. A genre I've never darkened
Maybe someday I'll hit you up for where to start.
Black velvet background?

idsurfer wrote in post #18978985
12 years old and still enjoys a good box to play with!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2i3P​NGe Untitled by cory shuler, on Flickr

Ha! That's great. I've spent tons on cat toys and it is the cardboard box that wins.

Snapshot from the dam.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2i41​WH5

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18979163
Snapshot from the dam.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2i41​WH5 We know each other (2) by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr

Wow, that's quite a fish. It looks like a catfish. I'd be happy to catch one that size too.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18979161
Fantastic results. A genre I've never darkened
Maybe someday I'll hit you up for where to start.
Black velvet background?

Thank you, Robert. I'd be more than happy to give you some info but I'm no expert. Only started shooting this style/genre a couple of days ago. No black velvet, just a very matte fabric and the setup is super primitive. My barn doors are 2 pieces of black construction paper held by an elastic band. Incense stick is embedded in whatever will hold it. Crappy phone photo. And my latest creation below.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

i was never a fan of the 24-105 f4 zoom lenses.. since my canon days I've never wanted one.
i only got one for video, the versatility of the zoom for run and gun type shooting is great.

however it is becoming my go to lens for still life/cityscapes photos very quickly.
i had one before acatully that i returned.. i think it was a dud though because this one seems more impressive through out the range, the last one i had seemed especially soft at the long end (105mm) , which from what i understand is usually the case with zoom lenses (being soft at the extreme ends).

anyway .. some food photos , in hind sight i should have straightened out the fabric in genral but especially in the upper right corner .. , i fixed it some on PS but i find it still a bit distracting

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2i45​crc