Jump to content

Username

Members
  • Posts

    1,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Everything posted by Username

  1. I did NOT mean "different" as an understated negative remark. If that difference were to better suit the needs of a given user, THEN it's an upgrade for such a user. If one switches from a Canon Rebel to a Canon 5D3 or 5D4, then THAT is an upgrade, cuz they are not so much DIFFERENT from each other as just that the Rebel is a far lesser version of the same concept as the 5D3/4. OTOH, the Sony live view cameras, which come in greater and lesser versions within the Sony line, are very much different, as a complete line, compared to SLRs. A live view camera is an upgrade to an SLR only if it suits YOU better, but NOT simply for it's being a later technological development. If the latter held true, then an i-Phone, being a later type of device, would be an upgrade from a Canon 5D4 !
  2. It's not an upgrade. It's just different. Definitely worth a try if you can afford to keep your current gear as well, for an overlap of about 6 to 12 months, in case you choose to stay with it.
  3. It helps to remove the rear baffle which is really easy. Three little screws NOT secured with Locktite or other bonding material. I decided to Dremel out the baffle and screw it back into place, which results in the coverage shown. Full sensor, no cropping: It makes in-camera panoramas from about 180 up to 345 degrees, depending on the format, shaped by menu choices. I was using a ball head, so there's no long handle for smooth panning, and it looks like such a handle is a good idea. Below are size reduced but otherwise not edited, straight out of camera panoramas:
  4. "Given the test results below" it really won't make much difference. Those results are just numbers. Real world pictures are, at best, tenuously related to numbers.
  5. No digital camera can meter TTL during exposure. The sensor, which would serve as the metering cell, is occupied recording the exposure. The old "off the film" type of TTL metered during exposure cuz the film was NOT the metering cell. Also, the film is a relatively matte surface where the filter pack on the digital sensor is a polished optical flat. Digital TTL metering actually makes a test exposure which is not recorded to the card, and is used by the flash to establish the appropriate power output to be delivered during the upcoming recording of the image. This uses a preflash, but the preflash can be very low power and still be useful for the purpose of metering. So, it really IS a TTL measurement, but NOT real time during the recording of the image. I'm uncertain whether the built-in flash is actually a TTL flash like the accessory flashes are. But if it is part of the TTL regime, perhaps you need to adjust something on your scope to pick up very weak test flashes emitted for metering purposes.
  6. No. ISO 320 should not be noisy. It would have a bit of noise if you badly underexpose the image but otherwise ISO 320 is very clean. This is ISO 400. It's also the old Nex-7 which is definitely noisier than any recent a6xxx camera.
  7. ` Any user with "pixels to spare" ... basically, the "R" version bodies ... might do well to experiment with Sony's Clear Image Zoom, not the other zoom, the Digital Zoom. Basically, it scales up the pixel count while slightly cropping the image. Unlike Sony Digital Zoom, CIZ is conservative, offering only 2X maximum. My use of it, never exceeding 1.5X, often allows using a prime instead of a zoom. P.S. I'm joining the chorus of compliments on your work !
  8. ` If it's any bit of a clue, altho my Sony interface is different, I do think the asterisks indicate that you are in AE lock ? Also, FWIW, have you DL'd the PDF versions of both user manuals/guides ? They are no clearer than the paper versions, but at least they offer a key word search feature that helps to find every mention of whatever controls might be affected. IOW, exactly same muddy info, but less pain.
  9. ` Updates are not reversible :-( Only option availabe is to advance to v4. Read every damnt word of instruction twice or 3X. Print out the instructions, or transfer them to some reader/device other than the device you'll be using to install the FW update. If you're planning to use a Mac, change your plan. Borrow or buy a Windows PC. https://esupport.sony.com/US/p/swu-download.pl?mdl=ILCE7RM2&upd_id=11196&os_group_id=5 `
  10. ` It's quite possible that you've assigned the AEL button to perform some other task than AEL. A sympton that suggests you may have done so is that the AEL button is working as AEL in the "idiot modes". In those modes any custom reassignment of buttons is undone ... IOW temporarily reverting to factory defaults. Browse the custom key menus to see if you have set a function other than AEL for that button. I can't steer you directly to the menus cuz the layout varies among different models and I have no "R" versions myself. If you haven't DL'ed the PDF manuals [should be two of them] then get them, cuz unlike Sony's horrible paper manuals, their equally horrible PDF versions do have the important advantage of the PDF search function ! Acoarst, the manual lens uses only A and M modes. But even then, AEL should work in the A mode after you get everything straightened out.
  11. +1. I distrusted him from the moment I saw his avatar. Looks too much like a politician .....
  12. ` The "exxon lawsuit" crossed-x maxxum logo brings a minor premium vs the later version on same lens. I would research on the current extra market value of the crossed-x and then figger to add about 2x to 4x the current premium. [Not 2x 4x of the total value, just of the added value of the crossed-x logo.] IOW, if a plain-logo beer can is $100 and the crossed-x beer can is bringing $140, IOW 40 extra $$s, then I'd estimate your trade show beer can would bring and extra $125 [+/-] on top of the hypothetical $100 base price. So, thaz my estimate as to proportion of extra market value .... but I haven't checked out the current market value of the basic beer can.
  13. Maybe the Sony sensor, but ..... Like yourself, I have SLRs that WILL autofocus in macro, that is to say it can be demonstrated that technically the AF is functioning as designed. But in a practical sense, I have always found that steering the AF target points to the desired part of the image is more tedious than just focusing the image as seen in the finder. And acoarst MF is easier in live view cameras [or LV mode in SLRs] than trying to MF with the SLR's optical viewing system, cuz the optical SLR finder has no MF magnifier, and a lousy "focusing" screen ... better referred to only as a viewing screen. I did put a real focusing screen in a Canon SLR, and altho it helps somewhat, it's not like the old focusing screens of the pre-AF era. Before AF, you couldn't sell a camera that defied the user's attempts to focus it !
  14. Common to all brands of cameras it means non-communicating lens, usually a lens that requires setting "shoot without lens" in the menu.
  15. ` Macro, at the level that tubes provides, is a strictly MF deal. Even if the AF was accurate, deploying it to get focus where you want it would be hellish compared to simply using MF [with the MF magnifier where needed]. MF is faster than AF for really close focus work, even if using a native brand true macro lens.
  16. ` ` Then you need an a6500. Apparently the 6300 has only contrast detection ... or if does have phase detection it's inferior to the larger [FF] sensor. The latter could be true, since PD AF is, in way, similar to a rangefinder, and a larger sensor would provide a wider rangefinder base. With rangefinders, generally the longer the FL the more you need a wider RF base, which has nothing to do with illumination levels. FWIW below is a user review from the Sony USA corporate site, so you are not alone as to your experience. The review indicates that you might actually be better off using Sony's faster, less costly 18-105/4.0 and deploying the a6300's Clear Image Zoom when you need more FL. I'm using the 18-105 on my a6000, an older one that has never had a FW update, and the AF is quite fast and accurate ... and I specialize in low illumination situations. So I keep the 18-105 on my a6000 [which has no PDAF] and use my a6500 with my adapted Canon EF lenses, cuz the a6500 works with those but the old a6000 just "throws in the towel". BEGIN REVIEW: Mediocre on a6000 Tried this lens on my a6000 and returned it because it was a bit too soft especially on the outer quarter of the frame at all focal lengths. Stopping it down to around f11 helped some. The only focal lengths that were really decent were from about were from about 80-110mm. Also autofocus was very slow between 150 to 200mm(5 to 10 seconds in good light at f11) not really worth the premium price that Sony is selling it for.
  17. ` If you have the latest FW in both units, return it, and try another brand .... and possibly another after the next one. I've returned MANY adapters, but I do have about a half dozen in use. OTOH photo needs, and work habits, of each user vary widely. "Image Crafters" will happily live with less than cutting edge performance, but be assured there are no adapters in use by ESPN stringers. While you're sorting all this out, one tip I can offer is that I use one combination that DOES offer fast AF and generally "high performance" ... but the controls that govern the AF functions use some different procedures than are used with native lenses. IOW if you have no AF when using the controls in accordance with the Sony Users Guide, intuition is in order before declaring it hopeless :-)
  18. And, objectively, this is also true, but not worth an "Amen" ! True that fumbling with your bag is a bummer, as is fumbling with your camera, car keys, etc. Self-evidentially true. Real fact. Also sad fact. IOW if you got your schidt together then you don't fumble with your gear. A bag is gear. So if you "spend time and energy" on it, you're in need of getting your schidt together ! Could you miss the shot of a lifetime, or even your personal "shot of the day/week/month/etc even tho you're a lightning fast unbagger ? No denying that COULD happen ..... just like you COULD get hit twice by lightning, or even win the Publishers' Clearing House Sweepstakes. Pouting over a missed photo is thinking more highly of your work than ANYBODY's work is deserving of. If you're good, you're productive and a few potential "great" images missed is just par for the course. * Cue the jump-in comments about split- * * second action subjects, such as sports.* Obviously, one does NOT look hammy with a continuously at-the-ready unbagged camera at a fast paced sports event, or at any similar spectacle. That would look quite normal, cuz it's normal and appropriate, even necessary. What looks hammy is prowling around like a hunter and repeatedly squinting thru your VF at possible subjects that clearly aren't going anywhere in a hurry.
  19. Given the razor thin focus plane I think you have caught the best/correct focus. Not just the better compromise, but the BEST at the limited DoF in use. If you had set a fixed focus and let the dog run thru it, toward you, and shot at 20 or 30 FPS, you would have the above image, and also an image with the face right at the in-focus plane. But at such shallow DoF the focused face would prolly not allow the focused shoulders which render that outer margin of the whole dog as sharp "spikey" wet fur. You'd have a sharp face/eyes but they'd be sitting in the midst of a soft-focuses larger dark mass. I can picture the shot both ways, and I prefer the posted version. Maybe cuz it's not my dog, not my family, so I see it as a successful action shot ... where mebbe you want it to be a portrait of an individual in your family ? Here's a visual of what I mean. I sharpened the face and slightly blurred the "spikey margin" of the whole dog: `
  20. ` Quite often, certain lenses produce more sharp pictures than other lenses, even tho lab tests show that the "other" lenses are optically better. Certain lenses are more productive, in terms of sharper results, due to other factors, such as faster and more accurate AF, better OIS, or just being more user friendly. Even wider maximum maximum apertures can help: When shooting at about f/4, better to focus at f/2, cuz focus is far more critical at wider stops ... unless you're still shooting with a rangefinder :-)
  21. Tho I quote you here, jaf, it is not to argue with you. It's just a logical connection point in the discussion. Forget "exact moment" ... I never said that and what I actually did recommend has nothing to to do with "last moment", "stealth/sneaking", "hiding" nor "what people think [of the the ham]". Soooooo .... lemme try to make this reeeeally clear. The purpose of bagging the camera is to carry it in reasonable safety for the device. The purpose of unbagging the camera is to USE it. The ham type shooter USES it to visualize ... peering into it while working out his images ... and acoarst, finally, also USES it to record the image. Other than for "real street", and action sports, the reason for keeping the camera bagged until ready to USE it for recording the image is to avoid using it as a visualizing crutch in place of one's own eyes. The idea is to use the eyes and mind To-The-Limit without technical aid. Obviously there will be some final adjustments after unbagging the camera. IOW no "last moment sneak". The reason that hams look hammy/silly/foolish is simply the same as the reason to minimize/delay "The Unbagging". Hams look silly cuz they really are BEING silly, constantly raising a machine to their face and prowling around and squatting and turning dials on the sacred machine. I recommend shunning the hammy dance NOT cuz it looks so silly. It doesn't matter if no one else is there to see you hamming. It matters that the hammy dance is is a dumb approach even when all by yourself in the wilderness. The hammy dance is a lousy substitute for your eyes and mind, and stunts your creative growth. When it becomes habit to visualize without any techie crutch, you tend to do it all the time, not just when intent on recording images, not just if you have your camera with you. Mind-and-eye visualizing becomes a mode of being even when tending to most other aspects of life. It may be a "back burner" thing much of time, but it's always cooking/simmering, even when you don't pay it conscious attention. And then when it's needed [for actual photography] it just pops to the front burner, already active and "tuned up".
  22. Also ... FWIW ... occasionally such seeming inconsistency is related to the chrono-order in which you hook up stuff vs when you power up stuff. When both the accessory and the camera are powered down/off, then hook up everything. Then power up the acc'y before the camera. Thaz the usually successful order, but at times a different order may be best. That way the acc'y is "live" and so the camera can sense its presence as the camera "wakes up and looks around". If you're lucky. Anywho, work out the order for the gear involved, starting at the above described "usually successful" and if you hafta go beyond that, do take careful notes !
×
×
  • Create New...