Jump to content

Chrissie

Members
  • Content Count

    467
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Chrissie last won the day on December 28 2019

Chrissie had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About Chrissie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    : Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

2,101 profile views
  1. Hi everyone, according to Sony, some sel1635gm lenses are affected by a "rare" error, which is covered by a "Limited Warranty" free of charge. Owners of this lens might want to check out the details here: https://www.sony.ch/de/electronics/support/lenses-e-mount-lenses/sel1635gm/articles/00235203. (German) https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/lenses-e-mount-lenses/sel1635gm/articles/00235117. (International / English)
  2. I got also curious when I read @JCC 's suggestion, but came to the same conclusion as you did.
  3. To quantify the risk you're about to take: if you brick the body, that'll set you back by around 400 bucks. A cheap multimeter can be had for around 10 bucks. Edit: I googled that for you: the Sony A6000 uses a NP-FW50 battery, rated at 7.2 Volts. Remember, that any auxiliary power supply must match the rated voltage of the original power supply. Personally, I wouldn't go beyond a 10% deviation.
  4. This answer, while technically probably correct, does not really help the TO, because there is a near infinite amount of chargers that also DON'T fit the task. And we also probably don't want to see an infinite amount of similar questions here. 😉 What I would do: Insert the dummy power supply, then connect the original battery to it and use a multimeter to measure the actual voltage and current draw while in operation. The voltage of any charger you'll use instead must match the one of the original battery, while the charger must be able to deliver the needed current without incurring a drop in voltage.
  5. Thanks for your detailed answer, which - frankly - leaves me more puzzled than before. I see quite a "gap" between your sample image, which apparently covers only a fraction of the sensor, with heavy falloff towards the outside and less than perfect sharpness on the one hand, and the superb 4K image quality that you seem to be aiming at on the other hand. How are you planning to close that gap? On an unrelated note: the adaptor seems to still have traces from some kind of machining on its inner surface, which would eventually taint the sensor of your camera, if not removed.
  6. Sounds interesting. 8-). It also sounds like the adaptor you're using doesn't provide the necessary distance to the sensor, i.e. is too short. If that's the case. it might be worthwhile experimenting with some extension tubes, like one of those. Could you please post a closeup of the naked adaptor only, plus one resulting image as shot with your setup?
  7. In that case, be sure to align the test sheet flush to the mirror, by at least taping all edges of the sheet to the mirror. In your 1st attempt, there are some warps clearly visible at the left edge. Since you're investigating a possible de-centering, it will not be the center area that you're worrying about. So you might as well cut out the center part of the test sheet liberally, to avoid a two-step approach. If you go that way, I'd also tape the inner edges of the cutout to the mirror. Good luck, and please do keep us posted on your further progress.
  8. @Pieter: you beat my by 15 minutes on this answer 😉. (I was still researching ...). But of course you're spot-on with your diagnosis. The poster did not align the camera well enough to make the judgement he did. (Top-left corner of the test chart is significantly closer to the sensor than the bottom right one). How to improve: DXO have a very good description on this kind of measurement: Image source: DXO
  9. Great shot! Would you please be so kind as to tell us which camera, lens, setting etc. you used? Did you know, that this forum has a Birds-in-Flight category as well?
  10. Bob, in case you're still following this thread: here they're discussing the exact equipment and it's properties/shortcomings as you have. Also in context of BIF, among others.
  11. Bob, thanks for the update. It's good to hear, that your body-lens combination IS capable of delivering sharp images with manual focus, as well as when using AF in bright light conditions. So this boils down to poor AF performance in low light conditions. You'll find a good discussion at dpreview about A7riii and using OSS mode 2 (or turning OSS off entirely), when panning big birds in flight (plane spotting). You're also probably aware, that higher resolution sensors like in the a7riii or a7riv are less forgiving than lower resolution sensors, when it comes to being in focus or not.
  12. Why don't you ask the dealer where you bought from?
  13. LiveShots, you're definitely correct in that doubling the shutter opening time (like: in going from 1/2500 to 1/1250) will half the ISO, ceteris paribus. There's no doubt about that. But: the TO is trying to do BIF. That's why there are limits as to how low the shutter speed is allowed to go, before encountering motion blur from either hand-shake or fast moving target. You always have to compromise. And, btw, the TO was not complaining about noise, but a high share of out-of-focus pics. That's a whole different story.
  14. Thad, thanks for the praise which I feel is undeserved. Because, as a photographer, my experience is still very much limited. What I'm mostly talking about is "applied physics", or "common sense", with the "common-ness" may be a little biased with me being an engineer by education and profession. That said: What I DO like about the second shot is: it has a lot of "depth" in it, with the near range being very present at the left side of the picture.. That's definitely a Plus, imo. The picture does include the nearest range being out-of focus (for obvious reasons), also the near range, the mid-range and also the far range, again out of focus for the same obvious reasons. Again, I'm unable to detect which plane (distance) was supposed to be in-focus. I realize. that posting images here requires compromise in terms of size. But this 2nd picture still lacks focus overall, imho. What's really strange is, that I couldn't even advise to focus more to the near or to the far range. I've highlighted the area which seems to be most "in-focus" to me. So, to be frank, this seems to be a "point-and-shoot" type of shot to me. Nothing deliberate, where someone wanted to convey a specific message. Sorry I can't comment more favorably on this.
×
×
  • Create New...