Sony A7x lounge

Charlie wrote in post #18288243
yeah, I'm thinking that as well. His samples seem 2.8 ish as well, and focal length definitely looks like 135 based on his working distance. He also shoots with the 135 f2 apo ZE lens. Only thing is that, there was a frontal view of the lens, and the front element looked very big, but could have been any lens really. Even the lens in this photo may be another one, doesnt have to be batis, but it's a lens used during his batis demo.

The shape of the batis lenses tend to make them look bigger than they really are...particularly since the front element flares out the way it does.

I don't think f2.8 is a deal killer. I stop my 135 down all the time b/c I want more DOF and the impact to the bokeh is kind of minimal because of the FOV compression.

SAL 135 f.18 stopped down to f2.8. Shot this on Sunday...Alfredo, this was done in Hermann park.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18288291
New Batis looks OK, but I'm holding out for the yet-to-be-announced Loxia 300mm f/6.3....it will be as thin as the other Loxias, but a full three feet long with the hood on, and will have really awesome IQ for landscapes. Hoping they'll have a special Negan signature edition with the barbed wire and all. That would be a true killer lens.

Haha! I am so far behind on the series.

mystik610 wrote in post #18288294
The shape of the batis lenses tend to make them look bigger than they really are...particularly since the front element flares out the way it does.

I don't think f2.8 is a deal killer. I stop my 135 down all the time b/c I want more DOF and the impact to the bokeh is kind of minimal because of the FOV compression.

SAL 135 f.18 stopped down to f2.8. Shot this on Sunday...Alfredo, this was done in Hermann park.

Hosted photo: posted by mystik610 in
./showthread.php?p=182​88294&i=i64425339
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Looks great! Awesome location. Do you ever shoot the brenzier method?

navydoc wrote in post #18287702
Someone, I think it was either Alfredo or Carlo, made a comment recently that when posting their edited image here, the forum background color made their image look different. What I've done to help mitigate that issue is to use a custom color for the background in PS CC. Right click on the background in PS and click "select custom color". Change the hex # to: e6e5e5 and click "OK". Now, whenever I want to see how my edit looks when posted on POTN, I just right click on the bg in Photoshop and select "custom color" to make the bg the same color as the forum bg.

For example, I changed the color of the bg of this mug image to e6e5e5 which makes it appear to be transparent here.

Hosted photo: posted by navydoc in
./showthread.php?p=182​87702&i=i238231173
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

This is great Gene. Thank you.

messing around with my old 600, while it gets close to the moon, it would be nice to get closer. Too lazy to stack, gene, didnt you have a trick for these moon shots to improve sharpness?

mystik610 wrote in post #18288294
The shape of the batis lenses tend to make them look bigger than they really are...particularly since the front element flares out the way it does.

I don't think f2.8 is a deal killer. I stop my 135 down all the time b/c I want more DOF and the impact to the bokeh is kind of minimal because of the FOV compression.

SAL 135 f.18 stopped down to f2.8. Shot this on Sunday...Alfredo, this was done in Hermann park.

Hosted photo: posted by mystik610 in
./showthread.php?p=182​88294&i=i64425339
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

so if you're going to shoot a 3/4 shot of a single person at f2.8, the bokeh must be buttery, right?

Charlie wrote in post #18288430
messing around with my old 600, while it gets close to the moon, it would be nice to get closer. Too lazy to stack, gene, didnt you have a trick for these moon shots to improve sharpness?

Hosted photo: posted by Charlie in
./showthread.php?p=182​88430&i=i264857211
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

You might try to first run the full sized image through your favorite noise reduction software, I use Nik's Define 2 a lot, and then while still at full resolution, go to "Filter>Sharpen> Shake Reduction". That seems to work well to remove any tiny movement made during the exposure for me... even though the camera/lens is mounted on a tripod. Once you've done that, then you can crop to whatever size you want to display at. Finally, you might add a small amount of "Smart Sharpen" before being saved.

Shot using my Nisi ND1000 screw in filter, Sigma MC11 adapter and Canon 24-105 f4L.

Smooth reflections app, 16 shots

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/RYy7​mW

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/RYy6​Kq

A7 II + SLR Magic 50mm f/1.1

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/RXDy​jd

Is someone using MC-11 + 35mm ART? +/-?

Charlie wrote in post #18288430
messing around with my old 600, while it gets close to the moon, it would be nice to get closer. Too lazy to stack, gene, didn't you have a trick for these moon shots to improve sharpness?

Hosted photo: posted by Charlie in
./showthread.php?p=182​88430&i=i264857211
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

I haven't tried this in several years, but Registax (free! http://www.astronomie.​be/registax/) stacks video frames together to make an extremely sharp photo of the moon and planets. I used it with 1080p, I would hope it works with 4K.

rcarlton wrote in post #18288670
I haven't tried this in several years, but Registax (free! http://www.astronomie.​be/registax/) stacks video frames together to make an extremely sharp photo of the moon and planets. I used it with 1080p, I would hope it works with 4K.

interesting concept and that might work in crop mode. The view of the moon in this case is like 100% crop I think, 1132 x 1132, so not sure if video will be magnified enough. I may play around with stacking tonight, it just requires some time and 30+ shots from what I recall.

Charlie wrote in post #18288688
interesting concept and that might work in crop mode. The view of the moon in this case is like 100% crop I think, 1132 x 1132, so not sure if video will be magnified enough. I may play around with stacking tonight, it just requires some time and 30+ shots from what I recall.

Shoot around 10 frames and load then into Registax. You'll get a sharp output. Look up Tony Northrop on YouTube for his tutorial.

digital_AM wrote in post #18288735
Shoot around 10 frames and load then into Registax. You'll get a sharp output. Look up To y Northrop on YouTube for his tutorial.

I still have the megamoon from 2014 on my desktop waiting to be stacked, I was just too lazy to do it

I just had a miserable photography experience: went to the National Infantry Museum in Columbus, GA. Going in they permitted no-flash photography. Cool. A little while later a guard comes up and asks, "Did anyone tell you you can take pictures in here?" I was floored. Next thing I know they're hauling me up to the manager's office to see if I'm allowed to take photos. He wanted assurance that I wouldn't sell any of the photos for profit. But the whole thing made me so angry I - my owned choice - formatted my card and showed him...and walked out.

Look, if you don't allow photography that's just fine with me...make it known up front and I just won't go there. But I hate that two or three guards told me photos were OK and then suddenly it's not OK because I'm taking "too many photos".

Inconsistency with clearly posted rules makes me really irate. I could have easily restrained my anger - photos of that place are of little importance to me and I had very little hopes they would even be worth posting - but I wanted to express to them the depths of my annoyance for hassling me about doing something they said was allowed. They were false.

Nice museum. Horrible management. Never going there again and wish I could get my donation back.