Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

Just looked at the rumoured specs of the Batis 40 CF (whatever CF means?) and it says it has a focus limiter switch with the following range - (Full / ∞ ~ 0.4 m / 0.5 m to 0.24 m).

Why would you want a focus limiter on a 40mm lens? Is that not normally a Macro feature?


It also says “Batis Size close to 85mm (40mm is slightly smaller)” - what does that even mean??

vinmunoz wrote in post #18639674
I agree. I would save and buy the A6500 instead.

TRhoads wrote in post #18639678
the advantage of the RX is the size...and built in lens.

mystik610 wrote in post #18639679
It's an odd camera. Specs are great, but how many people really need 24fps and a9 caliber AF in a p&s? O
I'd like to see sony do more larger sensor, fast glass p&s cameras. Ricoh GR type stuff

Maybe I'm the minority but I really like the RX100 series. I have an RX100 III and have been wanting an upgrade. Was waiting for the VI to come out so I could decide between the latest and greatest, or hope the price on the V will go down a bit.

I also have an A6500 and the RX100 still appeals to me (mostly for traveling). The A6500 barely stuffs into a large jacket pocket; the RX100 fits easily, or can even fit in a pants pocket. Honestly an A6500 with the 16-50 kit lens does not produce noticeably better photos than the RX100, but is larger/heavier/more expensive (the RX100 lens is about 2 stops faster, which negates the difference in ISO performance between the cameras). The A6500 doesn't shine until you start adding lenses, but this also adds cost/size/weight.

I've also started doing some underwater photography and the cost of a housing adds to the price difference between the two options. Using Fantasea as an example, the RX100 housing costs $399 (and I think I got mine on sale for $350), the A6500 housing is $998 with a lens port.

Charlie wrote in post #18639749
I wish I knew, otherwise it behaves like a native lens on the R3 and R2.

I've put through thousands of frames by now, not a single hiccup, does video well too. At close distances, the focus is slower, but not much to worry about. But that weight though

it's a hefty lens, and I really want a 35mm smaller than the 85mm, preferably the size of the 50mm or smaller..... like pancake

Yeah. Hefty......! Put's me off.......

xpfloyd wrote in post #18639739
I’m in!!!!!! Man, hope this is correct. I was wanting a 35 but could live with an AF 40. The cv40 seemed like a perfect one lens option but I need AF

xpfloyd wrote in post #18639750
Just looked at the rumoured specs of the Batis 40 CF (whatever CF means?) and it says it has a focus limiter switch with the following range - (Full / ∞ ~ 0.4 m / 0.5 m to 0.24 m).

Why would you want a focus limiter on a 40mm lens? Is that not normally a Macro feature?


It also says “Batis Size close to 85mm (40mm is slightly smaller)” - what does that even mean??

CF - Could mean "close focus" so limiting switch which doesn't the 135L have something similar....??

I presume it's going to be slightly smaller than the Batis 85mm. I hope their size guestimates are more accurate than Sigma's....?

67mm filters though. That's one plus

Ahh, I get it now. I’ts close in size to the B85. I would have thought a 40mm could be smaller than that. CF could mean close focus but 24cm doesn’t seem that close. I also don’t get why you would want a limiter in a 40mm lens that isn’t a macro.

Starting to wonder if 40mm is too close to the 55 which I don’t want to part with. My initial excitement there has dipped a bit. I wish the B25 was a B28

I am 85mm not 55mm so 40mm isn't too bad in that regard.

LeeRatters wrote in post #18639757
Yeah. Hefty......! Put's me off.......

CF - Could mean "close focus" so limiting switch which doesn't the 135L have something similar....??

I presume it's going to be slightly smaller than the Batis 85mm. I hope their size guestimates are more accurate than Sigma's....?

67mm filters though. That's one plus

while I use all 67mm filters, I can see this being a minus. It means that the lens will most certainly be pretty big for what it is.

400g would be the absolute limit for this lens IMO, 300, would be ok, 200g would be great, but impossible

it does give me great hope that the mythical 35 f2 will be addressed down the line. It's a high volume focal length, and it's sort of a disservice to force people's hand on high end prices first, but whatevers. I'll wait for it, and live with the hassles of the switching 2.8 for 1.4 when I have to.

A7mkiii iso invariance test

I read a page saying that the A7mkiii uses iso invariance (along with other models) meaning you can shoot astro as very low iso's and just push the exposure in post and get the same noise as a higher shot. I think I have this right. Anyway, I gave it a shot last night.
iso 800 @ f2.8 for 15 seconds pushed exposure in post.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/259t​AWA

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JfjD​A2

Captured a few shots of my son’s graduation with the FE 55

yellowt2 wrote in post #18639756
Maybe I'm the minority but I really like the RX100 series. I have an RX100 III and have been wanting an upgrade. Was waiting for the VI to come out so I could decide between the latest and greatest, or hope the price on the V will go down a bit.

I also have an A6500 and the RX100 still appeals to me (mostly for traveling). The A6500 barely stuffs into a large jacket pocket; the RX100 fits easily, or can even fit in a pants pocket. Honestly an A6500 with the 16-50 kit lens does not produce noticeably better photos than the RX100, but is larger/heavier/more expensive (the RX100 lens is about 2 stops faster, which negates the difference in ISO performance between the cameras). The A6500 doesn't shine until you start adding lenses, but this also adds cost/size/weight.

I've also started doing some underwater photography and the cost of a housing adds to the price difference between the two options. Using Fantasea as an example, the RX100 housing costs $399 (and I think I got mine on sale for $350), the A6500 housing is $998 with a lens port.

I think the RX100V looks more appealing to me. I'd take the 24-70 f1.8-2.8 equivalent over the slow super-zoom.

mystik610 wrote in post #18639889
I think the RX100V looks more appealing to me. I'd take the 24-70 f1.8-2.8 equivalent over the slow super-zoom.

I think the idea behind the range vs aperture was a way to differentiate the camera from cell phones. Cell phones that have dual lenses can practically work like a 24-70, and in low light, I think that's where these cameras are throwing in the towel. Instead, they focus on good lighting where larger apertures are not needed.

I played with a friend's RX100V and it's an impressive little camera. When it comes to indoor shooting, I imagine it goes to crap really fast, and I think that's where these types of cameras stop trying to compete.

gaabnz wrote in post #18639798
A7mkiii iso invariance test

I read a page saying that the A7mkiii uses iso invariance (along with other models) meaning you can shoot astro as very low iso's and just push the exposure in post and get the same noise as a higher shot. I think I have this right. Anyway, I gave it a shot last night.
iso 800 @ f2.8 for 15 seconds pushed exposure in post.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/259t​AWA iso invariance test by Gary Ashton, on Flickr

12 shot stacked image using Sequator iso 8000 @ f2.8 15 seconds

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JfjD​A2 Pakiri Stack 1 small by Gary Ashton, on Flickr

That is the basic idea, and what I have done when shooting the r2...shoot at 1600 and push a stop + in post...did you compare to a higher ISO image to see if there was much difference?

Easter Lily Cactus (Echinopsis oxygona) blooming in my yard

Itsed65 wrote in post #18639915

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/26FV​j57
Old Bull by lennycarl08, on Flickr

Nice, I didnt see one that big when I was there.

Guys, I have a favor to ask. I’ve recently watched some videos about developing one’s style. It’s also something I think about as I follow some popular photographers on Instagram. Would you say that I have a recognizable/consisten​t style? If so, can you help describe it in a few words or statements? Thanks in advance for the help.