Sony A7x lounge

mystik610 wrote in post #17779487
Accidentally shot this wide open...

Batis 85

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AiQs​tj _DSC6581 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

That's a beautiful scene and a beautiful capture.

Charlie wrote in post #17779460
I was researching, and based on this thread: http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/13427​04/0

I decided to pick up. H.Zuiko is the one to avoid, non coated. If it says just "Zuiko" or "MC", then your good to go. I need a 24mm, and it doesnt hurt that one of the better ones is tiny..... I like tiny lenses.

few more shots from DTLA

Nikkor 105

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zZFE​Ud Standing Still by Charlie, on Flickr

FE 24-70

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AUq6​Uj Patterns by Charlie, on Flickr

FE 55

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AUq7​iL Hole in the wall by Charlie, on Flickr

Good to know. I have the Canon FD 24/2.8, but I have not really put it through its paces. I always ended up relying on the 24-70 as a crutch.
I left the 24-70 at home for the first time this past Sunday to force myself and use the primes. The CV 35/1.7 was a resounding success. I now need to do the same with the FD 24. Take it on an outing and force myself to use it. Then I can decide if it stays or goes.
It has shot a few nice shots at home, including this one wide open...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ArQM​4Q

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17774958
Not sure what you mean, I think the desaturated look works great on the a7S files. Also, out of curiosity, what do you mean by "the annoyances of full frame"?

Sorry for late reply.

Not sure if it relates to compressed raw, but it seems like adjusting the whitebalance for example, feels almost like a jpg compared to Canon raw.

As in, you move the slider a certain amount and then it all just falls to bits. Same goes for desaturating, when reducing saturation it feels like the parts of the picture with low saturation initially drop away quickly, and the parts with high saturation hang around for ages. So to get the overall level of desaturation I want, doesnt seem to work. Not sure if once again that relates to compressed raw, but some aspects of editing feels more constrained / like jpg forwhatever reason.

In terms of the annoyances of a full frame camera, in the context of coming from APSC:

With APSC, if you had an F1.4 lense you can generally get blurred background at F1.4, and most things/everything in focus by F8. With full frame at equivilent field of view, F8 still seems to give very little depth of field. If I stop down enough (F22 or whatever) you get diffraction and also need lots of ISO etc to compensate.

With APSC, my 55-250mm lense. It had image stabiliser, it was tiny, autofocused well and at F8 I could get lots in focus.
For full frame I bought a 400mm non IS non autofocus prime lense. This gave approximately the same reach, but had idiotically thin depth of field even when stopped down. Very hard to use without a stabiliser, and I needed a friggen briefcase to carry it around. Which doesnt suit me at all, even if I had lots of money for an IS / autofocus 400mm prime, I wouldnt use it because it's too cumbersome.

At the wider end of the scale, full frame gives me problems as well.
With APSC, and the friggen awesome Sigma 10-20 lense. Stopping down to F8 at 10mm and I had an insane amount of depth of field, which was brilliant.
Now with a 16-35mm equivilent, even stopping down as far as I can I'm struggling with DOF issues.

The great thing though for wide lenses is how stupidly bright they are, for how wide a 24mm F1.4 is on full frame, there's really no APSC equivilent.
Or a 14mm F2.8 is bloody amazing.

It's no good for macro stuff either, and because the A7S is only 12mp you cant exactly digitally crop particularly effectively.

Dont get me wrong I adore my A7S! And I'm addicted to its benefits, I cant imagine going back to grainy looking ISO 800 hahaha.

But if I had zillions of dollars, I'd have a high pixel density micro 4/3rds (hmmm or maybe APSC) setup to compliment it. Which is what I'd use instead for anything macro, wide angle where lots of DOF is needed, or need heaps of reach.

This was 16mm @ F22 in order to get enough DOF.

romanv wrote in post #17779559
Sorry for late reply.

Not sure if it relates to compressed raw, but it seems like adjusting the whitebalance for example, feels almost like a jpg compared to Canon raw.

As in, you move the slider a certain amount and then it all just falls to bits. Same goes for desaturating, when reducing saturation it feels like the parts of the picture with low saturation initially drop away quickly, and the parts with high saturation hang around for ages. So to get the overall level of desaturation I want, doesnt seem to work. Not sure if once again that relates to compressed raw, but some aspects of editing feels more constrained / like jpg forwhatever reason.

In terms of the annoyances of a full frame camera, in the context of coming from APSC:

With APSC, if you had an F1.4 lense you can generally get blurred background at F1.4, and most things/everything in focus by F8. With full frame at equivilent field of view, F8 still seems to give very little depth of field. If I stop down enough (F22 or whatever) you get diffraction and also need lots of ISO etc to compensate.

With APSC, my 55-250mm lense. It had image stabiliser, it was tiny, autofocused well and at F8 I could get lots in focus.
For full frame I bought a 400mm non IS non autofocus prime lense. This gave approximately the same reach, but had idiotically thin depth of field even when stopped down. Very hard to use without a stabiliser, and I needed a friggen briefcase to carry it around. Which doesnt suit me at all, even if I had lots of money for an IS / autofocus 400mm prime, I wouldnt use it because it's too cumbersome.

At the wider end of the scale, full frame gives me problems as well.
With APSC, and the friggen awesome Sigma 10-20 lense. Stopping down to F8 at 10mm and I had an insane amount of depth of field, which was brilliant.
Now with a 16-35mm equivilent, even stopping down as far as I can I'm struggling with DOF issues.

The great thing though for wide lenses is how stupidly bright they are, for how wide a 24mm F1.4 is on full frame, there's really no APSC equivilent.
Or a 14mm F2.8 is bloody amazing.

It's no good for macro stuff either, and because the A7S is only 12mp you cant exactly digitally crop particularly effectively.

Dont get me wrong I adore my A7S! And I'm addicted to its benefits, I cant imagine going back to grainy looking ISO 800 hahaha.

But if I had zillions of dollars, I'd have a high pixel density micro 4/3rds (hmmm or maybe APSC) setup to compliment it. Which is what I'd use instead for anything macro, wide angle where lots of DOF is needed, or need heaps of reach.

I honestly don't know what you mean at all in regards to the RAW files... the a7S files are leaps and bounds more flexible than what I got from my 6D, which is truly saying something since I loved my 6D RAW files. I think Canon's skin tones still take the slight edge, but overall color accuracy is better with the Sony from my experience.

As for APS-C vs. FF... you're exaggerating quite a bit. The difference in DOF between them is about 1 stop. So if f8 works for you on APS-C, f11 should be almost identical on the FF camera (which shouldn't show any diffraction, especially with the a7S.

As for the lenses, the FF equivalents on average will definitely be larger, though most of the FE lenses are really pretty remarkably light and small when you compare them to SLR counterparts. I do wish Sony would release some more semi-fast and lightweight telephoto primes though.

Why on earth would you have to go to f/22 with a 16mm lens to get enough dof??? At 16mm and f/8 the hyperfocal distance is just over 1m. Set your lens to 2m focus and everything from around 1m to infinity is in focus.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17779575
As for APS-C vs. FF... you're exaggerating quite a bit. The difference in DOF between them is about 1 stop. So if f8 works for you on APS-C, f11 should be almost identical on the FF camera (which shouldn't show any diffraction, especially with the a7S.

Is this taking into account that you need a longer lense to get the same field of view? which is what makes for the dramatic difference to DOF.

In my experience there is absolutely no way that a full frame + 400mm prime is 1 stop of DOF away from 250mm on APSC, it's a night and day difference.

I've only got the A7S currently and often I'm struggling a bit with DOF issues which is why I mention it.

Which is why I think Micro 4/3rds would compliment it awesomely.

xpfloyd wrote in post #17779590
Why on earth would you have to go to f/22 with a 16mm lens to get enough dof??? At 16mm and f/8 the hyperfocal distance is just over 1m. Set your lens to 2m focus and everything from around 1m to infinity is in focus.

After coming from using an APSC + 8mm fisheye lense, oh man. Focusing isnt even a thing, just set at infinity and F8 and everything is awesome.

In this picture, the flower in the foreground (although slightly out of focus) is about 2mm away from the front element of the lense.

http://iforce.co.nz/i/​v4t1zrul.r4i.jpg

In this photo with 10mm @ F11 (from memory)

IMAGE LINK: http://www.iforce.co.n​z/View.aspx?i=rjvvvvqj​.tls.jpg

mystik610 wrote in post #17779487
Accidentally shot this wide open...

Batis 85

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AiQs​tj _DSC6581 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Looks good. I shoot some landscapes wide open on purpose with my leica 50 lux, as i feel it gives the images a very unique touch. But i see, the newer lenses like the batis have quite a lot less character than the older rangefinder lenses.

But nice shot nevertheless.

So your talking down full frame format on the basis that you can't use a FF and 16mm lens to recreate an apsc with a 8mm fish eye lens?

My response was in relation to the landscape photo you posted and you said as it was FF and 16mm you had to use f/22 to achieve the desired dof. I'm not trying to be argumentative here I'm just pointing out that this is not the case. I could post a hundred landscapes at 16mm taken at hyoerfocal with sharp foreground and sharp background at f/8-f/11

Edit - and this is independent of brand. Some of my best landscapes were shot on canon

xpfloyd wrote in post #17779595
So your talking down full frame format on the basis that you can't use a FF and 16mm lens to recreate an apsc with a 8mm fish eye lens?

My response was in relation to the landscape photo you posted and you said as it was FF and 16mm you had to use f/22 to achieve the desired dof. I'm not trying to be argumentative here I'm just pointing out that this is not the case. I could post a hundred landscapes at 16mm taken at hyoerfocal with sharp foreground and sharp background at f/8-f/11

Edit - and this is independent of brand. Some of my best landscapes were shot on canon

Ive used this technique for my milkyway shots at f/4 and foreground and stars are perfectly in focus. Id say everything between 5m and infinity is sharp

davidfarina wrote in post #17779596
Ive used this technique for my milkyway shots at f/4 and foreground and stars are perfectly in focus. Id say everything between 5m and infinity is sharp

Yep, but when you're wanting to add elements into the picture that are a lot closer than 5m or even 1m, (Which is generally my preference) APSC gives you a LOT more depth of field.
Micro 4/3rds would be even better.

Sigma 10-20mm has a minimum focus distance of 24cm which you can decrease a little further by stopping down. 8mm was even better.

My 16-35 has a minimum focus distance of 50cm, and there's no way I could stop down enough to bring that down to even 24cm.

There's no working around the fact that a 400mm lense is a beast of a thing, and a 250mm lense is tiny. One is hugely impractical, the other easily fits in a backpack with a bunch of other stuff. Both give the same field of view.

Like I said, I enjoy full frame and there are a lot of benefits. But it's not without certain unavoidable frustrations that arent an issue with an APSC sized sensor.

romanv wrote in post #17779600
Yep, but when you're wanting to add elements into the picture that are a lot closer than 5m or even 1m, (Which is generally my preference) APSC gives you a LOT more depth of field.
Micro 4/3rds would be even better.

Sigma 10-20mm has a minimum focus distance of 24cm which you can decrease a little further by stopping down. 8mm was even better.

My 16-35 has a minimum focus distance of 50cm, and there's no way I could stop down enough to bring that down to even 24cm.

There's no working around the fact that a 400mm lense is a beast of a thing, and a 250mm lense is tiny. One is hugely impractical, the other easily fits in a backpack with a bunch of other stuff. Both give the same field of view.

Like I said, I enjoy full frame and there are a lot of benefits. But it's not without certain unavoidable frustrations that arent an issue with an APSC sized sensor.

Well, do what works best for you right?

I personally will never go back to APS-C. Just so many benefits in FF...

Reminds me a bit of the Orton Effect which I like a lot.

Exactly the reason my GX8 is on this trip..it has done a lot of macro and landscape....only brought two sony lenses, the 70-400g2 and the dinky doo nex 16mm. I much prefer the Lumix 7-14 over it.
Now to give laudable encomium to the Rii, this next shot typical of the canopy here, bright above but my target deep in shadow. I could use the flash and Canon and setup the tripod-or I can use the Sony at ISO 6400. The birds don't give me forever especially when guarding their catch, that and the Rii + ea3 + 70-400g2 is so light and easy to wield. Yep I'd prefer ISO 100, who wouldn't, but the combo has given me many a shot down here. The ability to pull from shadow or increase exp in post to one on amateur level like myself is still amazing-

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Amwc​hX