GaryW

Technically, the DoF does not differ.  It's simply a crop, which is just the easiest way to think about it.  Everyone just gets confused (myself included!) when "equivalence" is brought into a ...

What's amazing is that it took all of the camera companies this long to figure out that maybe video streaming would be something they could tap into.... as they continue to lose business to ...

I would imagine that a lot of lenses that are sharp on FF might not appear as sharp on APS-C due to the tighter pixels. Using the center of the lens fights against that, perhaps. So, I guess you ...

Nice!   You are fortunate to have so many parks and opportunities for birds, there.  I just moved to a new place, but I think I'd have go pretty far to find something like that.  There are a ...

Maybe try some different software?  From RAW, unless you're trying to pull up the shadows (effectively increasing the ISO), you shouldn't be any worse off than the JPEG -- and generally, the ...

Interesting.  I wonder if it's just all part of the optical formula, the last bit of compromise in the lens? Yeah, I think I'd prefer some consistency, even though most of the time it wouldn't be ...

If you use APS-C, why are you using 35mm equivalents? This just muddies the water. Anyway, the f2.8 primes have been popular on APS-C. It's not like primes automatically means f1.8 on an FF camera. ...

Mine is pretty sharp.  To do it over again, I'd gladly pay $250 (even though I paid a lot less!).

I think camera aficionados would know that f2.8 still applies.  No one's being misled by tossing the phrase out there. Well, that's not exactly a fair comparison.  The Sigma f2.8 primes don't focus ...

Well, when someone says "bag of primes", did it really mean, "you can replace any and all primes with this lens!" and do you think that's really what other people assumed it meant?   I also ...

Why is that a limitation now?  Where were you years ago when people where clamoring for an f2.8 zoom?  ;-) Sony was so behind without a "fast zoom"! I'm tempted to call this nonsense.  You're only ...

A few messages ago, someone mentioned "erratic quality" -- I wondered if this was an implied dig at the 16-70? Anyway, for years, people have complained that the IQ of the APS-C lenses weren't good ...

I read a while back that Sony doesn't consider themselves to be a discount brand.  While I like more affordable lenses, I don't expect the best zoom lens on e-mount APS-C to be cheap, particularly ...

Wow, these look great.  I love the dynamic look you've given their "poses".

Why isn't it?  It's a G lens!  :-D  It's actually pretty sharp for a zoom.  I think the worst complaint is that is has a lot of distortion, and even the in-camera distortion correction doesn't do ...

Even my Nex-6 had tint adjustments in two axes.  Looking just now, I can't find the setting on my A6500, things have changed so much.  I say, resort to downloading the manuals.  :-)

I agree, there is a tone difference. You could try fiddling with the settings, or if you use RAW, you can adjust the tonal balance to whatever you want. Although, it's a lot easier if you can get ...

Me too! I can't say that I'm too excited about the a6500, when photographing my dogs running at me.  When they slow down, AF works great though!   I need to try again when I have more time to ...

Only if you do that, you'll find your edges quite soft at f2.8, as I discovered years ago.  It makes a great, heavy, f4 lens though!  While it was my favorite lens for A-mount, it was too ...

Often, the difference between lenses is only 10 or 15%.  Maybe greater if you want to compare the PZ kit lens with the sharpest of e-mount lenses, but even between primes and (better) zooms, I'm ...