Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

Woot, me the portraitist!
Rarely I attend a social event....especially a Christmas social event, but
I went to the Christmas party held by the company Poof works part time for.
This is the owner of the company and she commands a multi million dollar trout
farming business....Poof works in a subsidiary that operates many greenhouses producing
micro-greens for restaurants throughout the area.
I know nothing about portrait photography so please tear it apart. I will tell you this lady is
70 years old and with a mind that is zip off the wicket.

nice and interesting angle.

DTBaan wrote in post #18522958
i thought i recognized your user name. you used to post in the hawaii thread :P

don't see why you would need the 35 2.8 unless you want it for the size.
you already have the b25 and 50 1.8. dont think you need the in between. especially for that price lol

if you are just looking to spend money, i have a fund me page.

thanks in advance

here's the link ^_-

I've got the 28, 35, 50, and 85. 35 is easily the most unique of them all, that ultra small size makes the package like a smaller class of cameras. I also have a small and faster 35, but due to unique size, I tend to use the 2.8 version more often.

When photography is really low on priority, like a dinner, the 35 2.8 comes along 9/10 times. Really neat to have a very small option. For more photo dedicated occasions, I'll go 28f2/50f1.8 or 35f1.7/85f1.8

gregr2 wrote in post #18522179
Is this better?

Hosted photo: posted by gregr2 in
./showthread.php?p=185​22179&i=i208199449
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Yes!

i can't believe i went this far ignoring histogram. i saw those before and i know why it's important. there's many pro who advices to use histogram but i ignored it. Strobes mess up exposures. i'm tired to having good looking exposures at the back of the camera but when imported in LR, it will go like -3EV after a quick seconds.

I had a shoot yesterday and they are all go underexpose in LR after a few seconds. I learned that LR will show an "Optimized Jpeg" for a couple of seconds and then display the raw. I reviewed all the images today by looking at the histogram and the histogram is right, they are all underexpose.

Now I tested an on-camera flash(bounced to the left wall) with being mindful of the histogram and i got perfect exposure on my subject. I intentionally underexposed the background.

as you can see, all the sliders are in zero.

R3+24-105 at 10mm

**The second one is a more balance exposure. Again using histogram

mystik610 wrote in post #18522248
I think I'm set on selling the rx1rii as I haven't really been using it lately. I like the FE 35 1.4, but it is a big lens and not so fun to bring around casually. I still have the FE 35 f2.8, but its too slow.

I really want a goldilocks middle of the road 35mm...not too big, not too slow. Preferably with AF, but I think I could be ok with MF too. I've thought of the Loxia 35, but the CV 35 1.4 looks good too! I'm not too concerned about max resolution wide open since I'd want this for more casual stuff.

I had fun with the RX1RII as you know, but I get what you mean, it’s a expensive P&S at the end of the day. I try not to have too much gear at any one point, because to me I feel bad if it’s just sitting in my office not being used. Which is probably why I’ve never really had a true backup camera ever. At one point in time a few years ago I was shooting with I believe the Nikon D850 and I also had the Ricoh GR that I bought for $400 to use as a backup/compact. Long story short I would pack the GR along every time I shot, and you would see me with the D850 attached to a shoulder sling while also having the GR attached to a wrist strap. If you didn’t know any better you’d think I was insane shooting with two cameras at literally the same time and trust me it did drive me crazy sometimes standing there trying to decide which of the two cameras to shoot with. Eventually I ended up giving the GR away to a teenager at my church who wanted a camera but couldn’t afford one. But I’d be lying if I said that was my only time owning a GR, lol.

randy98mtu wrote in post #18522388
What are our current options for E-mount full frame 35mm lenses with AF? What are the rumors for next year? I really want to sell my B25 and get a 35mm, but I'm not crazy about going way down to the 2.8, though the size is compelling...

Rumors have a Sigma 35mm 1.4Art which is supposedly smaller than the current Sony/Zeiss 1.4 by a noticeable amount. Not sure how much I would believe that, especially since if anything Sigma Art glass tends to be larger, rather than smaller (Their 85 Art is the biggest fast 85mm and their 24-70 2.8 weighs even more than the 2.8 GM). Also even the Rokinon/Samyang 35mm f/1.4 is almost identical in size and weight to the Sony. I’ll be shocked if it’s even 10-15% smaller.

vinmunoz wrote in post #18523070
i can't believe i went this far ignoring histogram. i saw those before and i know why it's important. there's many pro who advices to use histogram but i ignored it. Strobes mess up exposures. i'm tired to having good looking exposures at the back of the camera but when imported in LR, it will go like -3EV after a quick seconds.

I had a shoot yesterday and they are all go underexpose in LR after a few seconds. I learned that LR will show an "Optimized Jpeg" for a couple of seconds and then display the raw. I reviewed all the images today by looking at the histogram and the histogram is right, they are all underexpose.

Now I tested an on-camera flash(bounced to the left wall) with being mindful of the histogram and i got perfect exposure on my subject. I intentionally underexposed the background.

as you can see, all the sliders are in zero.

R3+24-105 at 10mm

If you are referring to the camera's histogram while shooting, I'm surprised you haven't pain much attention to that either. I think it's invaluable. IMO when it comes to exposure you can't trust what you see in the LCD when reviewing. The camera seems to generate a "corrected" version for your review. If your shot is underexposed it won't be as evident until you take the actual RAW file (the actual data you've collected for the exposure) into LR. I always use the histogram. My goal when shooting has always been to snug it up to the right as much as possible. However, I have found that since switching to Sony I can relax a bit. I'm now comfortable if there's a 1/2 stop or so left over "empty" on the right. I find that the Sony exposures can be raised quite a bit in post without too much degradation....more so than canon files. I feel like I've got a little more wiggle room with the Sony files. That said, I still do my best to get proper exposure at the time of capture rather than rely on editing for correcting exposure. I feel thats just good photography practice. And yes, flash/strobes can make getting proper exposure even trickier.

Isn't the histogram based on the optimized RAW file?

that's what i thought but after a few practice, with and without flash, it is evident that the histogram is right.

Yes TMag, i thought Sony gave us WYSIWYG EVF. it came out even in natural light, histogram is still the way to go after a few test last night. Now I'll never messup my exposures. I know we have leverage with Sony sensors but like you said, I also like proper exposure in Camera.

I still need to learn to slow down more on shoot and use my light meter but their are times like last time that I was in hurry because the sun was going out. and sometimes i get lazy to use the lightmeter.

TRhoads wrote in post #18523156
Isn't the histogram based on the optimized RAW file?

No I believe it’s based on the creative style settings for jpeg.

vinmunoz wrote in post #18523173
that's what i thought but after a few practice, with and without flash, it is evident that the histogram is right.

Yes TMag, i thought Sony gave us WYSIWYG EVF. it came out even in natural light, histogram is still the way to go after a few test last night. Now I'll never messup my exposures. I know we have leverage with Sony sensors but like you said, I also like proper exposure in Camera.

I still need to learn to slow down more on shoot and use my light meter but their are times like last time that I was in hurry because the sun was going out. and sometimes i get lazy to use the lightmeter.

I'm probably misunderstanding the question but do you have "Live View Display" on or off? Here's Mark Galler's comments on that feature.

http://www.markgaler.c​om …-setting-effect-on-or-off

idsurfer wrote in post #18523154
If you are referring to the camera's histogram while shooting, I'm surprised you haven't pain much attention to that either. I think it's invaluable. IMO when it comes to exposure you can't trust what you see in the LCD when reviewing. The camera seems to generate a "corrected" version for your review. If your shot is underexposed it won't be as evident until you take the actual RAW file (the actual data you've collected for the exposure) into LR. I always use the histogram. My goal when shooting has always been to snug it up to the right as much as possible. However, I have found that since switching to Sony I can relax a bit. I'm now comfortable if there's a 1/2 stop or so left over "empty" on the right. I find that the Sony exposures can be raised quite a bit in post without too much degradation....more so than canon files. I feel like I've got a little more wiggle room with the Sony files. That said, I still do my best to get proper exposure at the time of capture rather than rely on editing for correcting exposure. I feel thats just good photography practice. And yes, flash/strobes can make getting proper exposure even trickier.

Now that’s interesting. I often wonder why my Lightroom view is underexposed when my shots had been fine on the camera review

vinmunoz wrote in post #18523173
that's what i thought but after a few practice, with and without flash, it is evident that the histogram is right.

Yes TMag, i thought Sony gave us WYSIWYG EVF. it came out even in natural light, histogram is still the way to go after a few test last night. Now I'll never messup my exposures. I know we have leverage with Sony sensors but like you said, I also like proper exposure in Camera.

I still need to learn to slow down more on shoot and use my light meter but their are times like last time that I was in hurry because the sun was going out. and sometimes i get lazy to use the lightmeter.

Light meters are nice but too much work IMO. I got rid of mine. I like when David Hobby (strobist. com) to get rid of the light meter and just practice by checking exposure by histogram. He was right, the more you practice the easier it is to it perfect right out of gate.....especially with one person portraits and one light. Of course this is just my opinion for the sake of discussion this morning and I am by no means an expert or working pro.

TMaG82 wrote in post #18523081
I had fun with the RX1RII as you know, but I get what you mean, it’s a expensive P&S at the end of the day. I try not to have too much gear at any one point, because to me I feel bad if it’s just sitting in my office not being used. Which is probably why I’ve never really had a true backup camera ever. At one point in time a few years ago I was shooting with I believe the Nikon D850 and I also had the Ricoh GR that I bought for $400 to use as a backup/compact. Long story short I would pack the GR along every time I shot, and you would see me with the D850 attached to a shoulder sling while also having the GR attached to a wrist strap. If you didn’t know any better you’d think I was insane shooting with two cameras at literally the same time and trust me it did drive me crazy sometimes standing there trying to decide which of the two cameras to shoot with. Eventually I ended up giving the GR away to a teenager at my church who wanted a camera but couldn’t afford one. But I’d be lying if I said that was my only time owning a GR, lol.

I never really thought of the rx1rII as an expensive point and shoot, but rather a really good full frame sensor, mated to a really good lens, in a really compact form factor. I guess that makes it a P&S, but there are none of the compromises in terms of IQ that usually come with a P&S and that's where the value proposition comes. I never second guess myself when I choose to leave the house with the rx1rII vs my a7rII/III. I even used it as a second body at weddings at one point....only real downside is that the battery life sucks and I had to keep swapping batteries but it worked!

I'm trying to do more casual shooting for myself and familythese days, and that's actually where the rx1rii really shines.

I think the question I'm asking myself is if I really need top notch IQ for more casual type shooting, and also since the rx1rII is not small enough to eliminate the need for some sort of carrying system (bag, strap, holster), are the size advantages really material at the end of the day? I've been experimenting with the a7rIII and FE 35 f2.8 for the past couple of days to see if this works for me or not.