Sony A7x lounge

More portraits from a dreary day y'day. 135 1.8 ZA and Batis 85. "That Zeiss rendering" is very much apparent in these two lenses

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AEBE​CG

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AUW7​rw

mystik610 wrote in post #17779651
More portraits from a dreary day y'day. 135 1.8 ZA and Batis 85. "That Zeiss rendering" is very much apparent in these two lenses

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AEBE​CG _DSC6900 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AUW7​rw _DSC6700_1 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Very cute!

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.

I was actually going to write why not use F5.6 at 16mm - HFD is 5feet - but then I was wondering if he was going for a smooth water effect but it doesn't quite look like it. Either way, what was the SS and ISO because for me I would rather be using as low ISO as possible for better colours.

+1, do whatever works for your. Personally, I avoid F22 like the plague. Dust spots start showing up and IQ takes a huge hit. If I had no choice left, I'de do it, as well as a few more focus stacks at lower apertures, and blend in the sharp parts or a shot for foreground, one for background.

Charlie wrote in post #17779784
+1, do whatever works for your. Personally, I avoid F22 like the plague. Dust spots start showing up and IQ takes a huge hit. If I had no choice left, I'de do it, as well as a few more focus stacks at lower apertures, and blend in the sharp parts or a shot for foreground, one for background.

Charlie, just looked at your Flikr page - some very nice work.

Thanks

My only response to the above discussion is "Huh?"

This thread and Flickr are full of FF landscapes shot at f8, f11 and sometimes even at f4 or wider.

Happy Veterans day everyone.....

Puckman wrote in post #17779494
That's a beautiful scene and a beautiful capture.

davidfarina wrote in post #17779594
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.

Thanks!

Puckman wrote in post #17779861
My only response to the above discussion is "Huh?"

This thread and Flickr are full of FF landscapes shot at f8, f11 and sometimes even at f4 or wider.

Since I am in the forgetful crowd many of my landscapes are shot at f2...... Sigh

So having played with the Batis 25 for a bit now, I've come to the conclusion that having the LED display on all the time does affect the battery life of the camera. I read somewhere in a review that there was no noticeable difference. I felt like the battery went from 100% to 67% quite quickly until I turned it off and then it seemed to drain as it had in the past. I sure wasn't looking at the LED display at all with the wide angle so I feel it is a bit of a gimmick. Maybe it will be more useful with the 85.

Also, I found the lens to be a bit on the bulky side.

Having said that, the lens and the A7RII combo is simply outstanding!

Puckman - I've given some specific examples of landscape photos where full frame cant acheive the same thing as APSC.
It's not a problem unless you're wanting to include foreground items which are quite close.

Charlie wrote in post #17779784
+1, do whatever works for your. Personally, I avoid F22 like the plague. Dust spots start showing up and IQ takes a huge hit. If I had no choice left, I'de do it, as well as a few more focus stacks at lower apertures, and blend in the sharp parts or a shot for foreground, one for background.

Yep I agree about the F22 thing - I've never needed to go beyond F8 or F11 in the past.

I could fluff around stacking pictures, or I could just take the same picture with an APSC or Micro 4/3rds format and not need to bother.

If I had one of the other A7 cameras with a higher megapixel count, which effectively becomes a decent megapixel'd APSC in crop sensor mode then I'd be pretty happy all round. Get a Canon adaptor and whack some nice Canon APSC lenses on there for the best of both worlds.
But having 5 megapixels to work with on A7S crop mode means it's not really practical to use crop mode outside of video.

davidfarina wrote in post #17779604
Well, do what works best for you right?

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

For sure

What are the benefits of full frame that you cant go back from?

Image Quality? ISO performance?

I'm not meaning to sound like a negative nancy in this thread. On the flip side to there being situations where full frame cant do things I could previously easily acheive with APSC, there are some things that were previously impossible which are now easy.

This photo was F1.4 under moonlight, exposed for only half a second.
On my Canon APSC I'd need to expose for a minimum of 13-14+ seconds to get an equivilent level of exposure, which means I'd lose any motion in the water. Amazing difference! The whole reason I got an A7S

IMAGE LINK: http://www.iforce.co.n​z/View.aspx?i=vikb3eur​.1jx.jpg

romanv wrote in post #17780021
Puckman - I've given some specific examples of landscape photos where full frame cant acheive the same thing as APSC.
It's not a problem unless you're wanting to include foreground items which are quite close.

Shooting with an equivalent focus distance to keep an equivalent FOV, the difference in the f-stop needed to match the DOF between a FF camera to that of an APS-C camera with a proportionately wider (relative to the crop factor) focal length is not as drastic as you're making it out to be.

As can be seen below, with a focus distance of 10 feet, to match the DOF and FOV of 25mm @ f8 on an APS-C camera, you'd use a 35mm lens (25 *1.4 = 35) and an aperture of f10.

Again. The evidence is there for plenty of pics all over the internet/Flickr/POTN for FF landscape shots WITH foreground objects and a pretty deep DOF.

I don't mean to be contrary here, but I'm not really making anything up that's not proven by a few hundreds of thousands of landscape pics including some serious professional work hanging in galleries, etc...

No one has ever complained that FF doesn't provide enough DOF to do landscape. Sorry.