Valen305
Joined on
Jul 21, 2012
|
Comments
 |  |  |
| Bald Eagle by anisah from Features - lips/mouth | heron and fish by APenza from A Big Year - birds | Cows Cowering Under Rare California Super Cell by RBFresno from -The Old Cows- |
Beginner's GuidesGetting Started
In-depth testingLatest Camera Reviews
Beyond the studio testsFeature Articles and Videos
real world performanceField Test Videos
see how we seeSample Galleries
In-depth ReviewFujifilm X100F
Show CoverageHits and Misses from CP+ 2017
Throwback ThursdayClassic Cameras from Days Past
2468FeatureWhat is equivalence?
What's that Noise?Shedding some light on the sources of noise
Biowizard: This obsession with so-called "full-frame" would be laughable, if not so sad. Throughout the history of photography, there have been MANY different frame sizes, from 10x8" (and larger) down to tiny Minox spy cameras. Why does a legacy format, the one the Leitz had the brainwave of introducing, to allow the use of early cinema film in a camera, retain some "magical" sense of the only "real" size?!
Why not settle on a new format altogether - say 50mm circular (or at least octagonal), from which you could "pluck" either a landscape or portrait "full frame" image, without having to hold your camera on its side? Or a square one bigger than "full frame" allows?
Don't tell me its so photographers can use their 20-year-old film lenses! Who the heck does that?!
FORGET "full frame", make cameras the size you need for any given job. And for mine, 4/3rds does fine. When I want bigger, I'll get a Hassy.
Brian
"Don't tell me its so photographers can use their 20-year-old film lenses! Who the heck does that?!" I do that. I use a Minolta APO 200mm F/2.8 from 1987 on a Sony A7RII. Stunning performance from a 30 year old lens that cost me $300.
kesztio: Sorry, guys, but I cannot really see the reason of this medium-format camera, at least with such slow primes.
E.g. the 90 mm lens, which is supposed to be a little wider portrait lens, has the equivalent FF aperture of F3.2 × 70 / 90 = F2.4.
Even Micro Four Thirds has a really high quality portrait lens with this equivalent aperture of F2.4: the Nocticron 42.5/F1.2! Not speaking about Full frame systems where a good 85/F1.8 usually is a bargain.
Is the (somewhat) high(er) resolution such a key feature you want to sacrifice the price and the portability for?! Let’s be serious!
The camera you use is determined by the needs of your client and the assignment they give you. When an art director asks for a shot of an athlete frozen mid-leap in broad daylight and overpowered ambient using strobe by about a stop, your GX7 may get a few sharp-ish shots synced at 1/250th, if you're lucky. Not to mention, your power pack will be gasping between shots at f16.
People are so used to the perspective of camera phone photos, that when you take their photo with a telephoto, they either go "wow" or "hmmm".
John G Moore: I agree with you completely on the lens diaphragm control protocol. The lens diaphragm stopping down whilst focusing is a big issue for me, particularly when shooting in low ambient light in the studio with heads (1/200 @f11). My Nikon's and Hasselblad's perform well in that scenario where my A7RII's and G Master lenses perform particularly badly, purely because the Nikon and Blad lenses have automatic lens diaphragms that remain fully open until shutter actuation.
I would much prefer it if Sony changed the lens diaphragm control to behave like a DSLR remaining wide open whilst focusing and only closing to your chosen aperture value on shutter actuation. (Or at least let you choose in firmware) That way the camera would always be able to use phase and contrast detect AF. I'd rather have a camera and lens combination that can focus quickly and efficiently at higher apertures, than have live DOF preview.
Rishi, that's insane. Hopefully it is something that can be addressed with a firmware update.
John G Moore: I agree with you completely on the lens diaphragm control protocol. The lens diaphragm stopping down whilst focusing is a big issue for me, particularly when shooting in low ambient light in the studio with heads (1/200 @f11). My Nikon's and Hasselblad's perform well in that scenario where my A7RII's and G Master lenses perform particularly badly, purely because the Nikon and Blad lenses have automatic lens diaphragms that remain fully open until shutter actuation.
I would much prefer it if Sony changed the lens diaphragm control to behave like a DSLR remaining wide open whilst focusing and only closing to your chosen aperture value on shutter actuation. (Or at least let you choose in firmware) That way the camera would always be able to use phase and contrast detect AF. I'd rather have a camera and lens combination that can focus quickly and efficiently at higher apertures, than have live DOF preview.
My A7RII opens the iris all the way when I half-press the shutter, then stops down to the selected aperture in any lighting situation. The only caveat is that it only does that in AF-S.
Peer B: Sony should make it a user choice stopping down aperture while doing autofocus.
There is. Use AF-S with live view effect off. Any other focus mode causes it to stop down while focusing. Works for me.
With regards to the bit about FE lenses focusing while stopped down - it depends on two settings. If set to AF-S, they will focus wide open, and then stop down when focus locks. Continuous focus or any sort of tracking causes them to stop down while focusing. Enabling live view effect will also cause it to stop down to the selected aperture. Hope this helps.
Valen305: Nice! Can't wait to see how it performs. Especially coma - if any, wide open.
The quality is excellent stopped down and on a crop sensor (SD1). We'll see on a full frame. MTFs don't show you the whole picture ;)
Nice! Can't wait to see how it performs. Especially coma - if any, wide open.
Pre-ordered! ...my cat, that bokeh, bliss.
Dentists everywhere rejoice!
jorg14: I've had my photos published in books and magazines throughout the USA and shot for over 50 years (non professionally) and have no use for RAW.
Too time consuming, very poor archiveability, and dubious results for the effort involved. Most people spend far too much time analyzing a picture from a technical point of view instead of an artistic one. Very few of the most famous pictures of the past would pass today's pixel peeping muster.
Unless you shoot for very large prints, work in a studio, or have some other critical photographic work, you're probably wasting your time shooting raw... unless you just enjoy playing around.
Kryten61, I work with raw. I know it's virtues. But the great thing about shooting jpeg is that you can skip all of that post work once you've found the in-camera settings you like. you're not a better photographer just because you shoot and process raw. Some of the most successful photographers in history shot the analog equivalent of jpeg: transparency. There is no tweaking that slide after you've developed it, so you're forced to get it right in camera.
By the time I've taken the dxo out of my pocket, connect it to the iphone, launch the app and get to shooting, I've already missed the shot.
Valen305: Those $599 are better spent on a used RX100 III. You're welcome.
Yes. The quality of the dng samples I tested from the dxo is better than the RX100. But by the time I take the dxo out of my pocket, connect it to the iphone, launch the app and get to shooting, I've already missed the shot.
Valen305: I shoot with the A7R and A7RII and have yet to find any artifacts/issues due to compression. Maybe it's because I expose correctly in-camera and bracket when needed.
There's nothing wrong with pixel peeping if you print large. What's the point of shooting 42mp if you're not printing?!
Those $599 are better spent on a used RX100 III. You're welcome.
jorg14: I've had my photos published in books and magazines throughout the USA and shot for over 50 years (non professionally) and have no use for RAW.
Too time consuming, very poor archiveability, and dubious results for the effort involved. Most people spend far too much time analyzing a picture from a technical point of view instead of an artistic one. Very few of the most famous pictures of the past would pass today's pixel peeping muster.
Unless you shoot for very large prints, work in a studio, or have some other critical photographic work, you're probably wasting your time shooting raw... unless you just enjoy playing around.
I get Jorg's argument. For some applications, jpeg works really well. For example, Fuji's jpeg engine renders great skin tones right OOC that would otherwise take time to reproduce with another camera brand's raw. Sony's B&W filter produces jpegs OCC that are pretty close to what I like to get after tweaking a raw and using silvereffects.
Valen305: Waiting for a firmware update from Sony?! The A7R-III will probably come out before that happens. Yes, there should be an option for uncompressed raw, but the issue isn't a show-stopper for me. I haven't noticed any glaring artifacts on my photos yet, and omg do I pixel peep. Maybe it's because I expose correctly and bracket.
There are clean and sloppy ways to use those 14 stops, Esstee.
I shoot with the A7R and A7RII and have yet to find any artifacts/issues due to compression. Maybe it's because I expose correctly in-camera and bracket when needed.
Waiting for a firmware update from Sony?! The A7R-III will probably come out before that happens. Yes, there should be an option for uncompressed raw, but the issue isn't a show-stopper for me. I haven't noticed any glaring artifacts on my photos yet, and omg do I pixel peep. Maybe it's because I expose correctly and bracket.