Sony A7x lounge

navydoc wrote in post #17944246
Looking towards Camelot...Camelot rest home that is.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/F8FE​Wf Looking towards Camelot by Gene, on Flickr

Really cool Gene.

thenextguy wrote in post #17944005
Yeah, I've really come to like having the option for high resolution. I'm thinking of getting a 5DS and then maybe a 5D4 or even something like an 80D for events and high volume shoots.

Anyway, I guess this really isn't a topic for this thread anymore. I'm kind of bummed because there was a lot I loved about the Sony A7 bodies.

Ah that sucks Steve. But yes the quirks that happen with adapted stuff can ruin a shoot.

The 5DIV seems like it'll a fine camera when it hits the market. It seems Canon has jumped on the on-chip ADC sensor game and they've bridged the DR gap with the 1DXII.

thenextguy wrote in post #17943995
I will be leaving the A7 club. Had some more issues with my A7R II on a shoot tonight. This time the hotshoe was freaking out on me and not firing my triggers. It's possible it was the Pocket Wizards, but I never had this problem with my 5D3 before I sold it.

Now do I buy the 5DS or a new 5D3....which I just sold! I need something now before the 5D4 comes out.

I had issues using my Canon flashes and Pocketwizards on the a7r and a7rII. Once I got a flash/trigger set up that was compatible with the Sony hotshoe, things have worked beautifully. I use two Nissin Di700A flashes and the Air 1 Commander controller.

mystik610 wrote in post #17944226
So I was going to get the 16-35 sometime in the next couple of weeks, but am toying with the idea of the Loxia 21 instead? Is that a stupid idea? I'm most interested in the 16-25mm focal lengths, as I have 25mm+ covered

That's such a tough one...I'm having a similar struggle right now. I just added the TS-E 17mm to my bag (which brings me full circle back to my pre 11-24mm dual TS-E 17/24 kit), so I have similarly wondered if I still need the 16-35mm.

Zooms prey on our fear of the unknown. If we knew ahead of time the scenes we would encounter, we would likely just bring the appropriate prime lens. But, unfortunately we aren't time-travelers or fortune-tellers, so we take a zoom to cover a breadth of potential scenarios even though zooms are (usually) inferior to the best primes.

Another consideration I am having is the possibility that my ideal ideal zooms may well be the 16-35mm and 70-200mm combo, as I am most apt to shoot at FL extremes. I love the IQ of the 24-70L II, but if I sell that one I can keep the 35L II. I just don't know Carlo - I have always struggled to nail down the perfect formula for balancing the "what if's" (zooms) with the "should be's" (superior primes).

I'll say this in favor of the prime: I truly love what I have seen of the Loxia 21mm...it has a render that is arrestingly sophisticated. It feels like a lens designed for fine art photography, which is very appealing to my eye. Very appealing.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17944286
That's such a tough one...I'm having a similar struggle right now. I just added the TS-E 17mm to my bag (which brings me full circle back to my pre 11-24mm dual TS-E 17/24 kit), so I have similarly wondered if I still need the 16-35mm.

Zooms prey on our fear of the unknown. If we knew ahead of time the scenes we would encounter, we would likely just bring the appropriate prime lens. But, unfortunately we aren't time-travelers or fortune-tellers, so we take a zoom to cover a breadth of potential scenarios even though zooms are (usually) inferior to the best primes.

Another consideration I am having is the possibility that my ideal ideal zooms may well be the 16-35mm and 70-200mm combo, as I am most apt to shoot at FL extremes. I love the IQ of the 24-70L II, but if I sell that one I can keep the 35L II. I just don't know Carlo - I have always struggled to nail down the perfect formula for balancing the "what if's" (zooms) with the "should be's" (superior primes).

I'll say this in favor of the prime: I truly love what I have seen of the Loxia 21mm...it has a render that is arrestingly sophisticated. It feels like a lens designed for fine art photography, which is very appealing to my eye. Very appealing.

If you like what you get out of the 24-70 then i have no doubt you would like the 16-35. For me to be a lens that gets heavy use it must be fantastic, as it has hard competition with my summilux and fe90. And the 16-35 is my most used lens as it is without a doubt the sharpest zoom ive ever used

David Arbogast wrote in post #17944286
That's such a tough one...I'm having a similar struggle right now. I just added the TS-E 17mm to my bag (which brings me full circle back to my pre 11-24mm dual TS-E 17/24 kit), so I have similarly wondered if I still need the 16-35mm.

Zooms prey on our fear of the unknown. If we knew ahead of time the scenes we would encounter, we would likely just bring the appropriate prime lens. But, unfortunately we aren't time-travelers or fortune-tellers, so we take a zoom to cover a breadth of potential scenarios even though zooms are (usually) inferior to the best primes.

Another consideration I am having is the possibility that my ideal ideal zooms may well be the 16-35mm and 70-200mm combo, as I am most apt to shoot at FL extremes. I love the IQ of the 24-70L II, but if I sell that one I can keep the 35L II. I just don't know Carlo - I have always struggled to nail down the perfect formula for balancing the "what if's" (zooms) with the "should be's" (superior primes).

I'll say this in favor of the prime: I truly love what I have seen of the Loxia 21mm...it has a render that is arrestingly sophisticated. It feels like a lens designed for fine art photography, which is very appealing to my eye. Very appealing.

Yeah I'm with you there. I guess the question to me is what matters more....the fear of the unknown or the optical upside of the prime along with the size advantage? I tend to favor primes, but I'm not too sure of my needs on the UWA since I'm more of a casual landscape guy.

The loxia and the 16-35 aren't so far in price that $$ is a factor.

One comment though...if you like the IQ of the 24-70II, then you'll like the 16-35 F4IS. IQ and rendering are identical between the two lenses in my time with both. The Canon is also on my short-list of UWA lenses.

mystik610 wrote in post #17944280
Ah that sucks Steve. But yes the quirks that happen with adapted stuff can ruin a shoot.

The 5DIV seems like it'll a fine camera when it hits the market. It seems Canon has jumped on the on-chip ADC sensor game and they've bridged the DR gap with the 1DXII.

even if 5DIV gets DR closer to Sony, I'm not going back to giant DSLR bodies again, DSLR is dead to me.

mystik610 wrote in post #17944291
Yeah I'm with you there. I guess the question to me is what matters more....the fear of the unknown or the optical upside of the prime along with the size advantage? I tend to favor primes, but I'm not too sure of my needs on the UWA since I'm more of a casual landscape guy.

The loxia and the 16-35 aren't so far in price that $$ is a factor.

One comment though...if you like the IQ of the 24-70II, then you'll like the 16-35 F4IS. IQ and rendering are identical between the two lenses in my time with both. The Canon is also on my short-list of UWA lenses.

I should have indicated I already own the 16-35mm f/4L IS... it was the recent re-acquisition of the TS-E 17mm that precipitated me to question if I should keep the 16-35mm. But the more I think about it the more I am inclined to sell the 24-70L II. I am under a budget-obligation to sell something to offset the cost of the TS-E 17mm. The 16-35mm/70-200mm is probably a sufficiently safe cover-the-possibilities zoom combo.

Something has to get sacrificed. Which will I miss more: 24-70L II or 35L II? Probably 35L II, so looking more like 24-70L II has to go.

mystik610 wrote in post #17944229
Glad you're OK Jocau and hope that's the last of the attacks over there. My parents were there two weeks ago.....

Thanks. I'm glad your parents were there two weeks ago and not today.

Yeah, "luckily" they appear to aim for the capital of Belgium when they strike here and I don't live that close to it. It always saddens me immensely when I hear about terrorist attacks (regardless of where they happen). It's gonna take a lot of "good news articles" in the coming weeks/months to restore my faith in humanity.

The stats are horrible.

- Terrorists were shouting something in their language at the airport and then fired some shots
- 2 bombs exploded soon after that at the airport, 1 bomb exploded at a nearby metro station about 1 hour later (metal parts and nails/screws were attached to the bombs to cause maximum damage)
- 34 deaths so far (I believe 20 at the metro station and 14 at the airport)
- More than 230 people injured
- They also discovered a bomb belt which didn't go off

This floor plan of the airport tells where the bombs exploded. And this video shows footage of inside the airport just after the attack (dust all over the place and a screaming lady).

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17944271
I heard the news, that really sucks, I will be flying to Germany in few days... and being European I gotta say, that what you get for letting all these "refugees" in....

Yeah, that was a bad move, but even if we didn't let them in, we would still have this problem. There are too many "wasp nests of extremists" here in Belgium (even amongst the muslims that were born here).

mystik610 wrote in post #17944226
So I was going to get the 16-35 sometime in the next couple of weeks, but am toying with the idea of the Loxia 21 instead? Is that a stupid idea? I'm most interested in the 16-25mm focal lengths, as I have 25mm+ covered

My vote goes to the Loxia 2.8/21.

mystik610 wrote in post #17944280
Ah that sucks Steve. But yes the quirks that happen with adapted stuff can ruin a shoot.

The 5DIV seems like it'll a fine camera when it hits the market. It seems Canon has jumped on the on-chip ADC sensor game and they've bridged the DR gap with the 1DXII.

That sounds so unrealistic I can hardly believe it. Gotta catch up on the Canon news even though I'm not interested in DSLR cameras anymore.

jocau wrote in post #17944367
Yeah, that was a bad move, but even if we didn't let them in, we would still have this problem. There are too many "wasp nests of extremists" here in Belgium (even amongst the muslims that were born here).

true, but now more crazy ones joined them. doesn't matter which way you at it, this will not end well.

jocau wrote in post #17944376
My vote goes to the Loxia 2.8/21.

Haha...you're always predictable (in a good way).

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17944208
why not check what actually caused the issue? defective pocket wizards is a most likelly issue.

I have backup PocketWizards. I immediately swapped it out for a new one and had the same issue.

And I was actually using the 55 FE at the time, so I was using a native lens.

Eventually I got it to work, so the shoot wasn't ruined.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to sh!t on Sony cameras. I wasn't making my post to try to discourage others. If they work for your needs and you're happy with them--great! For me personally, I just don't think they're gonna work.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17944388
Haha...you're always predictable (in a good way).

Yeah, I prefer great optics and for me it's quality over quantity. Zoom lenses may be more practical, but a photographer is also often a problem solver.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17944387
true, but now more crazy ones joined them. doesn't matter which way you at it, this will not end well.

Build a big giant wall and make Mexico pay for it. Problem solved. What's next?

Seriously, my frustration is wondering if the US and its allies ever wise up to the notion that arming tomorrow's enemies to help us fight today's enemies is just not a recipe for peace in the future.