Sony A7x lounge

mystik610 wrote in post #17906265
A7rII + Batis 85 - Nissin i40 + 1/4 CTO Gel:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Ec45​5i _DSC7941 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

RX1RII - Nissin i40 Nissin i40 + 1/4 CTO Gel:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EhXZ​n1 _DSC7961 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Fantastic Carlo...love how rich these look. Especially like the Batis shot.

xpfloyd wrote in post #17903146
I just ordered the induro ct313 from amazon.com and its solid. Its reduced from $550 to $343 as its discontinued

just ordered one, amazon warehouse deals had one "open box" for $240

now I gotta find a good gimbal head, any recommendations?

Puckman wrote in post #17906263
Looks like everyone's interested in the Sigma 85 now

I've been admiring the Sigma 85mm Group Pool on Flickr for years. But, I know Sigmas can have problematic AF with Canon cameras. But, since Eddie has reported excellent AF experiences with it mounted on the a7R II via Metabones IV it has given me greater interest.

I am not (typically) a portrait shooter - just not in my genome - but I do like medium telephotos for my work and 85mm might just work better for me than 135mm. I do struggle to find my subjects at 135mm.

I don't want to color your or anyone's opinion about Sigma lenses, but there is one thing I consistently don't love about their "Art" series - they seem to have a grungy olive-brown color cast. I can go through image after image on all the Flickr Group Pools and I see that funky cast. It can be sort of appealing, but I'd rather it not be there at all. Anway, I just say that to say this: the Sigma 85mm colors look better to my eyes - frankly they shouldn't make an Art version because they'll probably frack up a good thing. Total opinion there - but just sharing where I am coming from.

Not a portrait shooter here either. But I've resolved to get out of my comfort zone this year and start shooting models via a local meetup group. I haven't started yet, but the plan is to show up to the next one or two and see how it goes.
Truth is, as much as I love architecture and landscape photography, unless I'm traveling, or willing to drive a lot (which work has me too busy to do these days), I've pretty much run out of new subject matter in my neck of suburbia.
That's one of the reasons I have not been out to shoot in over a month. DTLA is too far for an impromptu trip (although I still love exploring it) and the beach, while always fun, starts getting repetitive after a while.
Besides, I have really wanted to grow more as a photographer and include people subjects in my shots. And since I don't have any kids (some of you get to practice on your kids, hehe) and am mostly a solitary kinda guy, I don't really have a whole lot of subject matter at my disposal.

Case in point, I ended up goofing around the backyard today, while nursing a cold.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DLQN​bF

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DLQN​CT

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/E9Th​em

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DTda​xG

While looking through my pictures ive found one more shot of the prime tower from another angle:

This reminds me. Been meaning to ask a question for a while now.
Do you guys mess with the Camera Calibration panel in LR to tweak the color renditions out of the A7R2? Or do you stick to the Adobe default profile and go from there?
I'd never given that panel any thought until today. But messing around with the above pics in post, I found that those other presets can sometimes produce some nicer greens than what comes out of the Adobe profile.

Really liking your dreamy black and white building processing lately, David!

David Arbogast wrote in post #17906295
I've been admiring the Sigma 85mm Group Pool on Flickr for years. But, I know Sigmas can have problematic AF with Canon cameras. But, since Eddie has reported excellent AF experiences with it mounted on the a7R II via Metabones IV it has given me greater interest.

I am not (typically) a portrait shooter - just not in my genome - but I do like medium telephotos for my work and 85mm might just work better for me than 135mm. I do struggle to find my subjects at 135mm.

I don't want to color your or anyone's opinion about Sigma lenses, but there is one thing I consistently don't love about their "Art" series - they seem to have a grungy olive-brown color cast. I can go through image after image on all the Flickr Group Pools and I see that funky cast. It can be sort of appealing, but I'd rather it not be there at all. Anway, I just say that to say this: the Sigma 85mm colors look better to my eyes - frankly they shouldn't make an Art version because they'll probably frack up a good thing. Total opinion there - but just sharing where I am coming from.

Im looking at getting it with the LAEA3 so focus should be good wish I could find a used one in the 700 range but not many available. Think i would like 85 better than that 55 deal for the few hundred difference

hehe with the vivitar series 1 2.5 90

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DLTZ​Mk

Rode my bike in the woods...at night. Got lost a little, but found my way home. Funny, but I kept imagining I was hearing a panting dog hunting me down. I get chased by dogs on my bike too much, so being alone in the woods at night produces some fanciful imagination. Anyway, here's my bike just before entering the woods (and before nightfall) with the Chattahoochee River in the background (Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135mm ZE):

Puckman wrote in post #17906305
Really liking your dreamy black and white building processing lately, David!

Thank you very much. I had a lot of fun doing such planned shots. I feel a lot better to come home with a shot nicely set up with long exposures and tripod and everything, rather than just walk through the city and snapping around handheld.

that bike is so awesome, one day

I am enjoying it so much...hills are a breeze, yet it is still a great workout. Just what my 50+ yo body needed.

E-bikes are just going to continue to become mainstream.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17905516
Price considered SY looks amazing! Nearly as good as the Zeiss. But, a confession: reviews like that really bug me because they don't do much to speak to aesthetic rendering. They mainly look at sharpness, CA, and other measurables. Great measurables don't automatically make a great a great lens (or NFL player) and the Apo Sonnar is a perfect case in point. It's like those athletes that are warriors in the gym - look amazing getting off the bus - but can't cut it when it is actually game time.

I hate to say it, because I am a huge Zeiss fan, but the Apo Sonnar just doesn't have that pleasing a render to me. Dummy me got suckered and swayed by techinal reviews like this one and a couple years ago I sold my Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100 - which has an exceptional rendering - for the supposedly optically superior "Otus-like" Apo Sonnar. Just looking at my extensive LR catalog of both lenses I can say that despite the technical/clinical superiority of the Apo Sonnar, the MP 2/100 is simply a better rendering lens; it makes much more interesting photos even though it is duller and CA-prone.

All that said I may still keep the Zeiss 135mm since, after all, it's already in the bag. But, I need to force myself to use it long and hard (that's what she said) until I either begin to love it or despise it so much that I can sell it without regret (to prevent a future relapse). Although I have just ripped on the Apo Sonnar, it is by no means a bad lens and in its defense it can be said that a lens with an immaculately clean but deperately boring rendering can be a great canvas for post-processing...the lens injects zero personality, leaving it up to the artist to inject his own. That's not entirely a bad thing.

Anyway, get ready for some a7R II + Apo Sonnar photos, cause I'm on a mission to learn the truth: Does David love or loathe the Apo Sonnar? Time to find out once and for all.

I agree 100%. Heck, even with some of my vintage lenses even though I have some that technically perform better than others, I use the "lesser" lenses more often because I prefer the look to their images.

This is also what keeps me from pulling the trigger on the Sonnar 55mm... I think I'd rather have the Loxia 50mm, but I kinda want AF if I'm going to be paying that much

vinmunoz wrote in post #17906018
hahaha he sounds so fake and paid... lots of yelling "yohooo" "woowww" lol

Yeah, I really can't stand that guy... all of his videos are like that and half the stuff he praises Sony for is done by just about every other manufacturer anyway

davidfarina wrote in post #17906025
Thank you! Im very sorry but i cant tell you that its a bad piece of gear this time

Jup i dont like him. Almost arrogant but when i look at the pictures he takes, dont get me wrong he clearly understands what hes doing, is nothing special in my opinion.

I think we can drop the "almost", he's straight up arrogant

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17906252
seems like a good deal

http://www.ebay.com …f9e535:g:d9cAAO​SwnipWbTMf

It's a really good deal... definitely makes it even more tempting...

A couple of shots from my C/Y Zeiss 50/1.7

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DSBK​io

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DsQ7​TG

Another wild idea. Tell me if this sounds stupid or if it makes some kind of sense. Since the A7r2 provides IBIS would it make sense to dump the Canon 70-200/4 IS in favor of the non-IS version? That should save me a few bucks that I can direct to other glass. Or perhaps even use the savings to move up to the 70-200/2.8 non-IS?
Insane?