Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

Dlee13 wrote in post #18891058
Here's some photos of the Sigma lenses for you and those who are interested

https://www.nokishita-camera.com/2019/07/blo​g-post_10.html?m=1

Why would anyone buy the 45 2.8 over the Zeiss 35 2.8 at this point?

All these lens options, it’s so hard to make decisions, or should I say it’s so hard not to get caught up in GAS. I’m actually half considering just going back to the FE28/FE55 combo again in addition to my zooms. Life was simple back then.

It would be my third time buying each lens though

xpfloyd wrote in post #18891091
Why would anyone buy the 45 2.8 over the Zeiss 35 2.8 at this point?

I think maybe just those who prefer something in the 45mm range. Unless it's cheaper as well too.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18891099
All these lens options, it’s so hard to make decisions, or should I say it’s so hard not to get caught up in GAS. I’m actually half considering just going back to the FE28/FE55 combo again in addition to my zooms. Life was simple back then.

It would be my third time buying each lens though

But if you don't at least try the 35mm f/1.8 then there will be no one to tell all of us what it's like

xpfloyd wrote in post #18891056
Naturally aspirated! That’s even more impressive. Mine is twin turbo and has also been remapped. Although mine is a diesel so almost 4 second 0-60 is nuts in that regard. I really love old VWs. Been looking at type 3 fast backs most recently

AlanU wrote in post #18891038
My car is naturally aspirated and runs on 94 octane pump gas. I have many friends that run Race gas and higher compression in their street cars in the US.

I actually was intending to run a mild 75 shot of nitrous to run in the 10's but decided family life was more important. I retired my fun street car from the track as family obligations took precedence.

In Canada you'd need to buy a barrel of race fuel as it's difficult to find any places in close proximity with higher octane than 94.

The quaiffe diff makes this car feel super stable while running a slow 109MPH in the 1/4 mile. My cylinder heads are setup for street for higher port velocity and driveability so I'm not fully ported for the track. I should be making more HP with larger heads and faster ET's and MPH. I don't miss 1.5 foot wheelies at the track....well ok...I'm lying :P

I miss the smell of melting slicks but now I document cars/vw blowing up engines and having fun at the track.

Some photos I documented at the Great Canadian VW show as the official photog for the event.

Awesome Kombi.
Just read an article here about the end of the line for The Beetle.
That machine of yours will only appreciate now, if you can keep it in one piece
I'm interjecting! Keep the photos coming.

If I was going back to FF, I think I’d start with the new 35mm 1.8 and get the 85 1.8 and call it a day.

35 1.2 looks too big, 45 2.8 looks nice and compact and is right where my 30mm 1.4 on my a6400 is (45mm 2.1 equivalent), which I love.

I’d skip over the 28 f2 and the 55 1.8 now. Both are great lenses but I’ve always been more a 35/85 guy than a 50ish guy.

TMaG82 wrote in post #18891152
If I was going back to FF, I think I’d start with the new 35mm 1.8 and get the 85 1.8 and call it a day.

35 1.2 looks too big, 45 2.8 looks nice and compact and is right where my 30mm 1.4 on my a6400 is (45mm 2.1 equivalent), which I love.

I’d skip over the 28 f2 and the 55 1.8 now. Both are great lenses but I’ve always been more a 35/85 guy than a 50ish guy.

That’s ultimately why I sold both twice. I prefer 35/85 and when I had the 55 I also had an 85 and they were too close.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18891020
Lunafusion. £20 on the App Store. I edit all my vids on that

Thanks Eddie. I'll take a look.

navydoc wrote in post #18891033
Have you tried Hitfilm Express? It's a free video editor and compositor for visual effects.

https://fxhome.com/hit​film-express

I use Vegas Pro 16 for what editing I do. I started out using Vegas Pro 7.

Thanks Gene. I have not tried it yet but will look into. I heard Vegas Pro was good too.

LeeRatters wrote in post #18891037
Sorry Vinz..... The manual, second image wins. Outside is a little better, and the furniture and through the archway on the right look better too.

Agree. 2nd one for me. It has better tonal transition in the shadows.

Dlee13 wrote in post #18891071

Hosted photo: posted by PhotosByDlee in
./showthread.php?p=188​91071&i=i123937564
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

If the above image is correct and properly scaled, the 35mm f/1.2 will be massive. The 14-24mm is apparently almost the exact same size as the DSLR version which is by no means small but it looks much smaller compared to the 35mm.

Wait, there is a new 14-24mm for Sony emount? That's really cool. We have so many options now.

vinmunoz wrote in post #18891008
Honest cc please.

the first one is 3 exposures HDR processed in lightroom

the second one is 1 ambient and 2 flash frames manually blended in photoshop.

which one looks better for you? I'm trying to eliminate the strobe to be faster on shooting time.

Hosted photo: posted by vinmunoz in
./showthread.php?p=188​91008&i=i212267217
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by vinmunoz in
./showthread.php?p=188​91008&i=i125717814
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

The second has better color control - no exterior blue color bleed on the right side wall.

That said I’m not convinced I see enough quality difference to ultimately matter. Both are good quality product solutions for your RE clients. I’d go with whichever setup offers you the fastest/most efficient solution because time is money.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18891334
The second has better color control - no exterior blue color bleed on the right side wall.

That said I’m not convinced I see enough quality difference to ultimately matter. Both are good quality product solutions for your clients. I’d go with whichever setup offers you the fastest/most efficient solution because time is money.

I showed the two images to my wife and she said pretty much the same thing. "For a real estate image, both are just fine. Only OCD photographers would sweat the difference."

$1,400 for the 14-24 and 35 and $600 for the 45. Better save up guys.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18891091
Why would anyone buy the 45 2.8 over the Zeiss 35 2.8 at this point?

A 45 2.8 prime needs to be tiny...and Sigma can’t do tiny.

Also, 45mm is closer to 50 than 35mm, so this is essentially a 50mm 2.8 lens, which, unless it’s priced at $100, is a whole lot of a bad idea.

TMaG82 wrote in post #18891346
$1,400 for the 14-24 and 35 and $600 for the 45. Better save up guys.

Oops, I stand corrected. A $600 45mm 2.8 is a really dumb idea.

digital_AM wrote in post #18891243
Wait, there is a new 14-24mm for Sony emount? That's really cool. We have so many options now.

I would be interested in the 14-24 IF the hood was removable, based on the shared image it doesn't look like that will be the case but hopefully I'm wrong.

My son has a VTECH kids camera that he takes random photos with. I took the microSD card out tonight to transfer the images onto my laptop as it was full and somehow the card wiped itself! I’m running some data recovery software now so fingers crossed. Obviously not the greatest photos as he is 5 years old but special in the fact he took them and he had also taken loads of Isla as a baby. Hopefully not a disaster!