Sony A7x lounge

danialsturge wrote in post #17934912
Yea, I'm the opposite I like the crushed blacks etc. I realised you've edited a compressed JPEG edit of mine, but my fiancé looks possessed in that lol!

I like crushed blacks but I also like good contrast, I sort of flip back and forth between them depending on the shot. I liked your original

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17935025
i think we should all adopt the phrase to 'De-Donald' the skin

Love this

Yeah, Sony is as sensitive to the orange channel as Canon is to the reds. Both can be very irritating.

Interested in what your thoughts on this are:

http://yannickkhong.co​m …roblem-with-modern-optics

I agree with a lot of what the guy is saying about modern lenses being clinical and lacking character, but think there's some 'old school guy' snobbery behind his mind-set. Also, think that the idea of what 'looks real' is subjective, and some of his examples with people's faces have more to do with lighting than optics.

mystik610 wrote in post #17935115
Interested in what your thoughts on this are:

http://yannickkhong.co​m …roblem-with-modern-optics

I agree with a lot of what the guy is saying about modern lenses being clinical and lacking character, but think there's some 'old school guy' snobbery behind his mind-set. Also, think that the idea of what 'looks real' is subjective, and some of his examples with people's faces have more to do with lighting than optics.

He is regurgitating the same philosophy as the "angry photographer".

I want to believe it. I absolutely love that 3d look. But, just like the angry photographer, this guy is all yap and no produce. What they both fail utterly to do is show some d@mn examples. I'm not talking about portraits of different people with different noses and lighting and background - everything is different - I'm talking about the same subject, same conditions that show a clear - very clear - difference. Then I'm buying it.

But, these "snobs" as you rightly put it, yap on and on about what experts they are, how they know more than anyone else in the world about lenses (The AP claims this!), yet they don't show any examples. Don't back up what they're saying with indisputable proof. I'm not necessarily challenging their beliefs - just challenging their laziness in proving their assertions with some empirical evidence.

mystik610 wrote in post #17935115
Interested in what your thoughts on this are:

http://yannickkhong.co​m …roblem-with-modern-optics

I agree with a lot of what the guy is saying about modern lenses being clinical and lacking character, but think there's some 'old school guy' snobbery behind his mind-set. Also, think that the idea of what 'looks real' is subjective, and some of his examples with people's faces have more to do with lighting than optics.

the 50L vs Otus debate

Different types of photographs require different tools - sometimes an artsy tool is a better tool and sometimes a more clinical tool is optimal. I think that is what this article says without the hyperbol.

If you are an event shooter, shooting a 1000+ images, sharp across the focal plane at wide open apertures is awesome. If you are a portrait artist going for a look, you have many different things that are also important and you might not be jumping at the new 35L II just because it is nearly tack sharp across the frame at F1.4 - you may infact not care in the slightest - thus why some people love the 50L. Sure a lot of it can now be done in PS but who has time for that on a bulk scale.

a review for the upgrade. AF even with fotodiox is phenomenal.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17935194
He is regurgitating the same philosophy as the "angry photographer".

I want to believe it. I absolutely love that 3d look. But, just like the angry photographer this guy is all yap and no produce. What they both fail utterly to do is show some d@mn examples. I'm not talking about portraits of different people with different noses and lighting and background - everything is different - I'm talking about the same subject, same conditions that show a clear - very clear - difference. Then I'm buying it.

But, these "snobs" as you rightly put it, yap on and on about what experts they are, how they know more than anyone else in the world about lenses (The AP claims this!), yet they don't show any examples. Don't back up what they're saying with indisputable proof. I'm not challenging their beliefs - just challenging their laziness in proving their assertions with some empirical evidence.

+1.

He does get the 100MP correct IMO, great optics, bokeh, contrast, but that voigtlander has pretty poor bokeh in the shot demonstrated. The nikon 35 D not looking real good either, and like you said, completely different lighting.

different lens coating will also produce a color tendency, and perhaps some shooters have grown fond of that SOOC look, however, it doesnt mean better. Angry photographer is quite entertaining for sure.

The problem with some modern lenses is that overcorrection can lead to bokeh onions, spectacular highlights, and/odd sharp bokehballs. It can definitely happen with older lenses as well! Definitely case by case. What vintage lenses have going for it can be good enough, cheap enough. For instance, a cheapo OM 200 is probably as sharp as the legendary 70-200ii at similar apertures, doesnt have the same color rendition or contrast, but it can be considered "good enough". Better? no, not even going to go there.

vinmunoz wrote in post #17935241
a review for the upgrade. AF even with fotodiox is phenomenal.

just completely the upgrade and was testing the 85L in AF-C wide focus area - it is better and stays locked on very well - almost looks like the a6300 videos - my guess is that whatever the latest AF-C software they developed for that new camera, that is what this update got

if it only had eye AF it would be even better, but the face detect in wide mode is really incredible (85L II)

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17935239
the 50L vs Otus debate

Different types of photographs require different tools - sometimes an artsy tool is a better tool and sometimes a more clinical tool is optimal. I think that is what this article says without the hyperbol.

If you are an event shooter, shooting a 1000+ images, sharp across the focal plane at wide open apertures is awesome. If you are a portrait artist going for a look, you have many different things that are also important and you might not be jumping at the new 35L II just because it is nearly tack sharp across the frame at F1.4 - you may infact not care in the slightest - thus why some people love the 50L. Sure a lot of it can now be done in PS but who has time for that on a bulk scale.

50L vs Otus is a nonstarter in most cases, way out of the price league.

I dont think the bokeh of the otus is especially poor tbh. Would rather have otus optics for sure, in a 50L body of course. The 50L body is a decent size, otus is humongous.

I have an older nikon 200/2 and have used my brother's EF 200/2..... and while web sized photos may look the same, the EF 200/2 is so ridiculously sharp, it would be an easy pick between the two. 10 elements of the Nikon vs 17 elements of the canon.

Charlie wrote in post #17935255
Angry photographer is quite entertaining for sure.

He is entertaining. And I like him and enjoy many of his videos in spite of the fact that he thinks some of my gear is total crap (a7R II and Zeiss Otus 55mm) and badly misrepresents what Lanier says regarding the a7R II.

I didn't thoroughly read the whole thing, but after a quick skim, it seems that a big factor that he leaves out is post processing. If you're a shooter who doesn't like to post at all, you might prefer a lens that, by it's optical characteristics, sort of bakes in a look you like. The 50L is a good example - you can get a slightly softer look to skin because it's just not as sharp as many other lenses... but that means other things like the eyes are also not sharp. Personally, I like my eyes to be sharp, and any skin softening that needs to be done, I'd prefer to do it after the fact, and with some degree of control on where it happens.

And yeah, David's point is perfectly stated. Without side-by-side comparisons, showing exactly what he's talking about with examples, it's all just "this is what my gut says"

Agree with the comments above. The 50L is a special lens and probably the best modern example of what's being discussed. That lens was purposely designed without an aspherical element, in an age where aspherical elements are basically the norm. Hell its predecessor, the FD 50L has one. The focus of that lens is bokeh vs sharpness and contrast. I think to some extent you can create the look of the 50L in post, but only to a certain point before it starts looking over-processed/artificial and artifacts start getting into the image. If you want that look, using the 50L is the best way to go. From what I've seen of the GM lenses, this appears to be the design philosophy behind those lenses as well. On the flip-side, you can't really add sharpness or contrast to an image either...not without ruining the image at a certain point.

I think its largely a matter of taste. For most modern photography, particularly landscapes, a highly corrected lens is the best baseline to start with. For things like portraiture, there are a lot of factors to consider.

eriet30 wrote in post #17935040
Sigh ok so I had the botanical garden experience with my 55 1.8 where I learned about CA issues with the 55 and the A7r2 at wide apertures and certain subject matter. Basically i was using the lens much like a do all lens that day and so it was covering some of the semi-macro shots where the CA shows up on say cactus spines in light.

So this weekend I was using the Siggy 85 1.4 and had the same issue. Love both these lenses but the A7rii is taxing the wide open fine edges.

Just have to adjust what I am trying to do and pull the macro lens out when I want to macro.

Anyway spent Saturday at the Tucson Air show with my Olympus trailblazer friend Alex and then Sunday went hiking at a local dam.

From under the spillway

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Ej3E​bN _DSC0510.jpg by Paul, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/F64v​ME _DSC0594-Pano.jpg by Paul, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EP1c​cy _DSC9315.jpg by Paul, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EP1b​gW _DSC0355.jpg by Paul, on Flickr

Nice shots. I don't know of very many fast primes that don't have CA wide open, and yeah the a7rII seems to exaggerate it at times.

Just upgraded mine too and it seems a little better with my Fotga adapter.

It does hunt a little every now and then, but I find if I release the button and re press it works fine.

Took this while testing out the 70-200 f2.8II with the new firmware. No big improvement in AF performance...still hunts on the long-end of the lens when extremely defocused, but still very useable.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FiFM​c6