Sony A7x lounge

xpfloyd wrote in post #18008919
Carried out a little testing today of the smooth reflections app at a local waterfall. Test wasn't very scientific as I changed lenses, settings, framing, focal length and number of shots taken within the app but the one thing I did learn is that for waterfalls you definitely need to use an ND filter (or shoot in light that allows a long enough shutter speed) as without doing that you get a sort of stutter effect (see Batis shot below) which isnt that nice looking

Batis 25 - No filter - 256 shots

IMAGE LINK: http://s68.photobucket​.com …Test_zpsrritj0n​h.jpg.html

Samyang 24 - Lee Little Stopper - Cant remember how many shots but think 128 (also light had changed and I changed the framing)

IMAGE LINK: http://s68.photobucket​.com …st-4_zpswtpebndq.jpg.html

Minolta 35-70 @35mm - Lee Little Stopper - Cant remember how many shots

IMAGE LINK: http://s68.photobucket​.com …st-3_zpsta2f5vuc.jpg.html

You have great scenery - this falls is amazing (always loved your shots of it).

Thanks David

Batis 85. Callum likes the cartoon "Mike the knight" amongst others

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GipH​rc

Eddie, awesome scene! I agree with you. I found that the SR app does create a ghosting or stutter effect for waves and sometimes on waterfalls. I had the most issues on waves though. You also don't get quite the same look as shooting with an ND filter. Still, the app does work very well on clouds.

Forgot to mention when I went out shooting today I took the camera out the bag to realise I had left the power on and it had drained the battery. I then realised I forgot the spare. Luckily I had my external power pack and dummy battery in the bag so was able to shoot. I then realised I still hadnt bought a step up ring for the Batis 25 so decided to use the 16-35 (to allow me to use filters with the SR app) and at that point I realised I had forgot the metabones!!

Calamity of errors so ended up just taking some test photos

xpfloyd wrote in post #18008944
Thanks David

Batis 85. Callum likes the cartoon "Mike the knight" amongst others

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GipH​rc Callum - 46-52 - 16.05.16 by xpfloyd, on Flickr

Eddie, you always have great light on your portraits. Nicely done.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18008965
Forgot to mention when I went out shooting today I took the camera out the bag to realise I had left the power on and it had drained the battery. I then realised I forgot the spare. Luckily I had my external power pack and dummy battery in the bag so was able to shoot. I then realised I still hadnt bought a step up ring for the Batis 25 so decided to use the 16-35 (to allow me to use filters with the SR app) and at that point I realised I had forgot the metabones!!

Calamity of errors so ended up just taking some test photos

Wow! Haha. Same thing happened on my trip a few times. I went to power up the camera and the battery was drained. Not sure how the power mode dial got flipped. Luckily I had extra fully charged batteries.

So. Talk me out of getting the Batis 25 on account of that FL is already covered by the 24-70/2.8GM.
Is there any reason whatsoever to get the 25?

(I kinda agree with the David and may want to get myself the Batis 85 at some point for the reasons stated)

Puckman wrote in post #18009057
So. Talk me out of getting the Batis 25 on account of that FL is already covered by the 24-70/2.8GM.
Is there any reason whatsoever to get the 25?

(I kinda agree with the David and may want to get myself the Batis 85 at some point for the reasons stated)

Size. 24-70 2.8 zooms are massive, heavy, and not a lot of fun to lug around. The batis 25 is a nice little general purpsoe lens to carry around.

I've owned the Batis 25 alongside the Canon 24-70II for awhile. The zoom only comes out when I shoot events.

Batis 25 is awesome. Great general purpose walkabout lens and doubles as a landscape lens. Loving the 85 too. Couldn't see myself wanting to lug around the 24-70 although it does produce some magic

xpfloyd wrote in post #18008919
Carried out a little testing today of the smooth reflections app at a local waterfall. Test wasn't very scientific as I changed lenses, settings, framing, focal length and number of shots taken within the app but the one thing I did learn is that for waterfalls you definitely need to use an ND filter (or shoot in light that allows a long enough shutter speed) as without doing that you get a sort of stutter effect (see Batis shot below) which isnt that nice looking

Batis 25 - No filter - 256 shots

IMAGE LINK: http://s68.photobucket​.com …Test_zpsrritj0n​h.jpg.html

Samyang 24 - Lee Little Stopper - Cant remember how many shots but think 128 (also light had changed and I changed the framing)

IMAGE LINK: http://s68.photobucket​.com …st-4_zpswtpebndq.jpg.html

Minolta 35-70 @35mm - Lee Little Stopper - Cant remember how many shots

IMAGE LINK: http://s68.photobucket​.com …st-3_zpsta2f5vuc.jpg.html

where do you live?

nothing like this where I am

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #18009104
where do you live?

nothing like this where I am

Scotland. This waterfall is about 30 mins drive away from home so an easy hit to try out new things (normally lenses but this time the app)

i get that the 24-70 is large and heavy.
But I'm definitely getting it. To me, and the way I operate, it still going to save me weight and space.
I'm a sucker who insists on bringing more lenses than I should on every outing, just in case.
What that's translated to, with primes, is that I often lug more weight around, even though individual lenses may be smaller and lighter.
My plan is to replace a large number of lenses with this 24-70, which is how I can rationalize the cost.
This zoom has enough speed too to make some of my faster primes redundant.
For example, while I had the FE 24-70/4 and EF 16-35/4 on the Yosemite trip, I still lugged around the sigma 35/1.4 just in case I needed faster aperture. I also has the 55/1.8.
I also lugged around the CV 15 and the 70-200/4.

Point being, with the 24-70/2.8, I can sell the sigma and the 55. And won't need a 24 or 25 prime. So the weight ends up being less.

At least that's my thinking right now.

Sony A7 II + Helios 77m-4 (50mm f/1.8) @1.8

Puckman wrote in post #18009133
i get that the 24-70 is large and heavy.
But I'm definitely getting it. To me, and the way I operate, it still going to save me weight and space.
I'm a sucker who insists on bringing more lenses than I should on every outing, just in case.
What that's translated to, with primes, is that I often lug more weight around, even though individual lenses may be smaller and lighter.
My plan is to replace a large number of lenses with this 24-70, which is how I can rationalize the cost.
This zoom has enough speed too to make some of my faster primes redundant.
For example, while I had the FE 24-70/4 and EF 16-35/4 on the Yosemite trip, I still lugged around the sigma 35/1.4 just in case I needed faster aperture. I also has the 55/1.8.
I also lugged around the CV 15 and the 70-200/4.

Point being, with the 24-70/2.8, I can sell the sigma and the 55. And won't need a 24 or 25 prime. So the weight ends up being less.

At least that's my thinking right now.

Yeah....the reason the 24-70 doesn't really replace primes for me is because I often shoot at wide apertures, and 2.8 isn't always fast enough...as such there's a compromise between having flexibility with focal lengths vs flexibility with max aperture. So if I do stick the 24-70 in the bag....there's a fast prime or two in there with it. But if you're stopping down to smaller apertures anyway, then the zoom definitely does have an appeal especially if the IQ is there throughout the focal range.

The need for a 2.8 zoom is sort of specific to event photography though... it'd be nice if the 24-70 F4 were a better performer.

Puckman wrote in post #18009133
i get that the 24-70 is large and heavy.
But I'm definitely getting it. To me, and the way I operate, it still going to save me weight and space.
I'm a sucker who insists on bringing more lenses than I should on every outing, just in case.
What that's translated to, with primes, is that I often lug more weight around, even though individual lenses may be smaller and lighter.
My plan is to replace a large number of lenses with this 24-70, which is how I can rationalize the cost.
This zoom has enough speed too to make some of my faster primes redundant.
For example, while I had the FE 24-70/4 and EF 16-35/4 on the Yosemite trip, I still lugged around the sigma 35/1.4 just in case I needed faster aperture. I also has the 55/1.8.
I also lugged around the CV 15 and the 70-200/4.

Point being, with the 24-70/2.8, I can sell the sigma and the 55. And won't need a 24 or 25 prime. So the weight ends up being less.

At least that's my thinking right now.

I would just tough it out with the 24-70 and skip the batis 25. Get the batis 85 for the occasional portraits.

if you're just looking for a simple no-nonsense landscape kit, 16-35 + 24-70 + 70-200 can cover just about anything. Add in two 77 rings, and an 82 + foundation kit and you're set. BTW can you see the MW at yosemite?