Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

TRhoads wrote in post #18754245
One from Roan earlier this year, finally landed on an edit I like...the color was the challenge, trying to get the softer pastels of that morning.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2bUH​R97 Roan Rock Sunrise by Travis Rhoads, on Flickr

I know that rock

navydoc wrote in post #18754396
Wingbeats...

(Pardon the boring signature )

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/QTns​nL Wingbeats by Gene, on Flickr

Now that is a hummingbird!
I'm way tired of frozen wings!
Awesome capture AND sig Gene.

Charlie wrote in post #18754602
A9r would be awesome, but my wallet cant handle anymore beatings this holiday season

5 birthdays in november, and then my wife's in a few weeks..... and then christmas

just cant handle it

I don't think I'd even want an a9r, actually I'd still prefer a mini-a9. But maybe I'm missing something.

Milo and Rollo have their little cat suitcases packed and are ready to head west in the morning.
2.5 days and we'll either be lying dead on the side of an interstate or imaging Cranes at Bosque.
Hoping for the later.
I can scan the thread via my phone while Poof racks up the miles behind the wheel.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18754923
I don't think I'd even want an a9r, actually I'd still prefer a mini-a9. But maybe I'm missing something.

You mean an APS-c version?

Either way, I'll all for smaller

vinmunoz wrote in post #18754875
another from the Sigma135

was there any blur to the BG added in post?

I have had two sessions in the last two days, shot them both with the 135L and 85GM, and have been really happy with how both turned out. I put the 135L on the r2 so that I can shoot a bit loose, longer working distance, but then I can shoot wide open and maintain the DoF needed, and crop in a bit since the r2 has the resolution to work with. That said...the 85GM is sharper. But only noticeable if you are peeping.

TRhoads wrote in post #18754982
was there any blur to the BG added in post?

I have had two sessions in the last two days, shot them both with the 135L and 85GM, and have been really happy with how both turned out. I put the 135L on the r2 so that I can shoot a bit loose, longer working distance, but then I can shoot wide open and maintain the DoF needed, and crop in a bit since the r2 has the resolution to work with. That said...the 85GM is sharper. But only noticeable if you are peeping.

the 135A is shockingly sharp, but in the end, does it matter?

It's sharper than the 85GM by a good bit, and yet I dont find the 85GM lacking.

The blur is good, but fairly indistinguishable from the 135L I think, havent done a side by side, only impression. You have to stop the 135L down to F2 to match the 135A wide open, no joke. It's a great lens, and reason I personally got it was for near native AF behavior on the A7's. I think I would be ok with the 135L if I had the A9 beforehand.

I think sharpness at really fast apertures is overrated....DOF is so small that its hard to spot the difference with real world photos unless you pixel peep.

But yeah the Sigma is stupidly sharp wide open. 85GM is pretty sharp wide open, and stupidly sharp at F1.7. That's the sweet sport for the lens IMO..not because of sharpness, but because that's where they micro contrast kicks in

TRhoads wrote in post #18754982
was there any blur to the BG added in post?

I have had two sessions in the last two days, shot them both with the 135L and 85GM, and have been really happy with how both turned out. I put the 135L on the r2 so that I can shoot a bit loose, longer working distance, but then I can shoot wide open and maintain the DoF needed, and crop in a bit since the r2 has the resolution to work with. That said...the 85GM is sharper. But only noticeable if you are peeping.

No i did not add more blur. In my eyes wide open the sigma is sharper both wide open. The 85GM is tack sharp at f1.6 in my results

I think the only big difference that i like with the 135 is the background compression.

vinmunoz wrote in post #18755030
I think the only big difference that i like with the 135 is the background compression.

a good read about background compression and the reality that it is not lens based...it is about working distance to the subject.

https://fstoppers.com …ssion-doesnt-exist-147615

So you can get the same "compression" or feel from 135 and 85 by moving your feet!

TRhoads wrote in post #18755035
a good read about background compression and the reality that it is not lens based...it is about working distance to the subject.

https://fstoppers.com …ssion-doesnt-exist-147615

So you can get the same "compression" or feel from 135 and 85 by moving your feet!

Subject framing changes when you move with your feet though. For portraits changing lenses is a matter of the difference in background compression/FOV given the same subject framing. Subject distance is kind of irrelevant as long as you have the working distance...To me...mentally it's a matter of aesthetically determining what you want the subject/background composition to be.

This photo was taken the day before yesterday, just as a cold front, and associated rain event, was about to hit.

Photo taken at Poenisch Park, Corpus Christi, TX.

The calm before the storm..

Photo from txsizzler's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (945704)

Are there any compact tripods out there that don't suck?

I'm using a meefoto and its not the best, but I'm not really interested in anything crazy bulky.